To IS or not to IS?

dmcreations · January 10, 2007

I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on this topic. So Sony has released a dSLR that features image stabilization in the camera body itself, thus negating the need to have it built into each lens individually.

I'm wondering what the chances are of Canon or Nikon coming out with such a feature in any of their dSLR bodies? Would it make sense for them to do so? The disadvantages would be that they would almost instantly cannibalize part of their revenue stream and marginalize part of their lens lineups because people would no longer have an incentive to buy any of their lenses that feature IS. That feature alone can add $500-$600 to a lens. The upside is that photographers would benefit by providing them with better value.

Will the market force the camera makers to implement this feature? Is it worth waiting a few months for, or is it something you think will not happen in the forseeable future? What will happen with IS lenses that people have bought with the anticipation that they will hold their value? Curious to know what you folks think...

Tommyboy · January 10, 2007

Perhpas someone can comment on the difference in how the IS is accomplished in a lens and in a body. Is there any image quality difference? Is it optical in a body?

Back when I sold video cameras and IS first came out, there was both optical and digital. The former was wonderful but expensive. The latter was cheap but degraded the image.

I don't know if that is true of DSLRs though. Anyone?

ziggy53 · January 10, 2007

dmcreations wrote:

I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on this topic. So Sony has released a dSLR that features image stabilization in the camera body itself, thus negating the need to have it built into each lens individually.

I'm wondering what the chances are of Canon or Nikon coming out with such a feature in any of their dSLR bodies? Would it make sense for them to do so? The disadvantages would be that they would almost instantly cannibalize part of their revenue stream and marginalize part of their lens lineups because people would no longer have an incentive to buy any of their lenses that feature IS. That feature alone can add $500-$600 to a lens. The upside is that photographers would benefit by providing them with better value.

Will the market force the camera makers to implement this feature? Is it worth waiting a few months for, or is it something you think will not happen in the forseeable future? What will happen with IS lenses that people have bought with the anticipation that they will hold their value? Curious to know what you folks think...

You are also making the assumption that the in-camera stabilization is the equivalent of the in-lens stabilization. The reality is that there probably is a difference.

A lens with I.S. can be "tuned" to its specific vibrational frequencies versus focal length. A body based stabilization system is probably going to be more of a compromise to accomodate a broad range of lenses. Until there is some method for a quantitative test for stabilization, all we will read about is how well a system "seems" to work and how well it "feels" compared to another. (Qualitative and subject to individual opinion.)

Imagine a lens and body which could coordinate their stabilization systems? Such a system could be vastly superior to either technology alone. I suggest such a system would be possible in the next few years. Is it worth waiting for? No way of telling.

Anyway, such a system would allow the development of Canon and Nikon camera based stabilization, if they could justify and market the need and demonstrate system superiority.

ziggy53

ziggy53 · January 10, 2007

Tommyboy wrote:

Perhpas someone can comment on the difference in how the IS is accomplished in a lens and in a body. Is there any image quality difference? Is it optical in a body?

Back when I sold video cameras and IS first came out, there was both optical and digital. The former was wonderful but expensive. The latter was cheap but degraded the image.

I don't know if that is true of DSLRs though. Anyone?

Both Sony and Pentax have developed in-camera stabilization which works by moving the imaging chip. The Pentax K10D also provides "rotational" stabilization, I believe the first of its kind.

ziggy53

gluwater · January 10, 2007

In body IS should be fine for wide and standard lenses but when you get to the big guns, telephotos and super telephotos, the in lens IS will prevail. There has been a lot of discussion on this on the web recently.

Check out this link to TheOnlinePhotographer.

Here is an interesting read about fraudulent IS in point and shoots on dpreview

dmcreations · January 10, 2007

Cheers, thanks for the thoughts here folks. Some interesting points here. From what I've read here and elsewhere, the conventional wisdom seems to be that neither Canon nor Nikon would introduce such a feature until the market forced them to. I hope I'm wrong becuase more choice is good. Afterall, Canon effectively redefined the entire category of prosumer dSLRs with the Digital Rebel. So I'm hoping they are more of a market leader in terms of innovation than a company that waits for the market to dictate what they do next...

Art Scott · January 10, 2007

I have never used any lenses that were IS or VR (they look large and bulky and do cost quite a bit more than non IS / VR lenses)...but as a user of the KM7D's and a no longer owned KM A2...I can tell you that I very much have appreciated the in body image stabilization from KM (Only from the Mind of Minolta

)......I have most shot with 2 lenses a 24-70 / 70-210 Apo both f2.8.....Now the body with the 24-70 is ofcourse light weight and easy to hold even in our Kansas winds....on the other hand 90%+ of my shooting is done with the 70-210 and that is a heavy lens (mine doesnot have a tipod collar as I write this...however one is coming from Sigma).....a lot of my wildlife (mostly deer...but there are birds and other such wildlife I shoot aslo) shots would have been total loses if it had not been for the in camera image stabilization....Of course the best stabilisor is the tripod...but there are times when I know I will not be able to use a pod so I switch on the stabilisor.....due to the wicked winds here I have also had to use the stabilization even while poded.....I am quite happy I chose to go this route to begin my dslr journey.......

To IS or not to IS?

Comments