Are Canon and Nikon going to hurt themselves..

[dmm96452]

..by not adding image stabilization to their camera bodies in order to continue to sell us multiple copies of image stabilization technology in their lenses?

This was just a thought I had today as I read a preview of a new Pentax that has CCD shift shake reduction. That makes Sony, Pentax and I thought there was someone else out there that has IS in a DSLR, but I can't remember who.

Thoughts?

[Speed]

..by not adding image stabilization to their camera bodies in order to continue to sell us multiple copies of image stabilization technology in their lenses?

This was just a thought I had today as I read a preview of a new Pentax that has CCD shift shake reduction. That makes Sony, Pentax and I thought there was someone else out there that has IS in a DSLR, but I can't remember who.

Thoughts?

Logically, you give the people what they want. And image stabilaization/optical stabilization/vibration reduction or whatever they're calling it this week, is becoming increasingly poplular. And not just in DSLR's - a lot of compact and advanced compact cameras have it today as well.

It also makes a lot of sense to build the IS/OS/VR into the camera body. Then EVERY lens is an IS/OS/VR lens. Which means every lens you own is now an IS/OS/VR lens.

BUT...Nikon and Canon are the two largest camera companies. Rather than making a one time sell of $1000 for a DSLR body, they can make multiple sells on high dollar ($1000 plus most of the time) lenses with built in IS/VR.

I don't own any VR lenses. I've tried them, and would love to have VR in all my lenses. I paid less than $1000 for my 80-200mm f2.8. The comparable 70-200mm f2.8 VR retails for over $1600. I wish I had the money for the VR version, but I don't.

I'm a Nikon man. I've accumulated four Nikon camera's, three Nikon flashes, two Nikon lenses and three Nikon mount Sigma lenses. I am not going to go buy a Pentax or a Sony and start over. Not happening. And Nikon knows this. Eventually, Canon and Nikon may feel the pressure to put IS/VR into the camera bodies, but I don't expect it anytime soon.

Are they hurting themselves? Maybe. But right now, I think they aren't losing enough business to force them make the change.

My two cents worth.

[darkman]

Are they hurting themselves? Maybe. But right now, I think they aren't losing enough business to force them make the change.

My two cents worth.

Plus, just looking at it from a physical standpoint, having the stabilization in the lens is a better option (though more expensive) in terms of stops gained. Especially when you get to longer focal lenghts. Also, having it built in limits how small they can make a lens for the aps-c. If the image circle is optimized for aps-c the sensor wont' have much freedom of motion. While with 35mm image circle lenses they would have more freedom. I would suppose that software in the camera would read the lens type and compensate. However, you just can't say the stabilization is getting you 4 stops because it depends on focal lenght and image circle. BTW, I have had A dark corner due to the stabilization in my KM A2. This never occured when the camera was on a tripod w/wo IS on. So the sensor was eclipsing the image circle.

As far as hurting themselves, maybe a tad in the lower end consumer market. But I doubt by much. You can argue that they're hurting themselves some in the high end market.

I'm also suprised how often I'll just turn the IS off. But the media has sold it as a must have instead of a nicety.

[Speed]

Touche' !!! There was photography before IS/VR. And the majority of us shoot without IS/VR everyday. It is a very nice, nicety though.

I haven't heard of vignetting due to the sensor movement in IS cameras. Now that would concern me. Suddenly, I see an arguement for lenses equiped with IS/VR....

Thanks for sharing your experience!

[another view]

Interesting, hadn't heard of vignetting that way either. Canon and Nikon both have a fair amount of IS/VR lenses but I've heard that the VR function works better in some Nikon lenses (not sure about Canon) than others. If they built it into the camera body, it might be too much of a compromise - you might get more VR help from the 70-200 lens than VR built into the body. I'm thinking of bottom line results, as in comparing the sharpness of a hand-held 1/30 at 200mm VR lens shot versus VR sensor shot. Just thinking and typing...

[racingpinarello]

While putting that technology in the camera does make sense, the price jump for the bodies would hurt Canon and Nikon more. The price of photography has actually risen since the digital age, and to buy new entry level body costs around $600. If it jumped up to $750 they would lose a lot of first time sales. Also battery life would be much shorter.

I don't use the technology because I am not a sports shooter. It also makes the images a little softer when in use.

So I think that Canon and Nikon are doing it right.

Loren

[dmm96452]

...BUT...Nikon and Canon are the two largest camera companies. Rather than making a one time sell of $1000 for a DSLR body, they can make multiple sells on high dollar ($1000 plus most of the time) lenses with built in IS/VR....

This is where I thought they might hurt themselves. Not necessarily with those of us that are more or less committed, but with people just breaking into the DSLR world. Those people may look at that and decide that a few hundred more for the body and then big savings on lenses down the road is the way to go.

[darkman]

Interesting, hadn't heard of vignetting that way either. Canon and Nikon both have a fair amount of IS/VR lenses but I've heard that the VR function works better in some Nikon lenses (not sure about Canon) than others. ...

Anonther thing to think about, considering the image circle, is that besides needing to keep lenses larger to keep the image circle big enough to allow sensor movement, is that this technology is limited to aps-c. There's no way, with the current lens line up - to apply this technology to a full frame sensor. To do this, they would need to make bigger lenses with a bigger image circle so the 35mm sized sensor can move. So for canon, which has aps-c to 35mm sensors, you would only be able to see this technology in their aps-c cameras. BTW, different canon lenses have IS that works better than others by design. In general, the newer lenses are better.

To elaborate more on the physics, for a built in system if the lens/body "shake" around the optical axis, the sensor needs to compensate 2x the movement of the outer lens or sensor.. You can easily see that on a long lens this could be a cosiderable distance for the sensor to move to compensate.

Whereas, canon/nikon have 2 gyros measuring speed and angle of shake (I suppose the built in must emply something similar, or at least measuring speed and direction). This information is sent to a GROUP of lenses located at the optical axis. For a given movement around the optical axis, these elements have to move 1x compared to the in body design and given they're a group, the can keep the light rays alligned.

In all fairness, I should point out I had a uv-0 filter on my A2 at all times and most of the time I didn't get vigetting. But it still illustrates the point and tight tollerances with this design.

[another view]

In all fairness, I should point out I had a uv-0 filter on my A2 at all times and most of the time I didn't get vigetting. But it still illustrates the point and tight tollerances with this design.

If vignetting didn't happen all the time, then the filter isn't a problem. Thanks for the input.