in-body vs. in-lens IS

F

fugu

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 2, 2000
Messages
10,668
A couple of us are pulling the 5DII thread off topic with this discussion, so let's talk about it here

Justintoxicated said:
When will canon learn to build IS into the cameras rather than the lenses :(
Click to expand...

Hopefully they'll never drop lens based IS... It's a better system, especially with longer telephotos, which is where you need it the most. Given that Canon places a lot of emphasis on sports shooters, I can't see them getting switching over any time soon.

Body IS wouldn't be a bad thing if they could throw it in for free, but I'm not sure how much more you'd have to pay for a camera with it integrated.
 
fugu said:
Hopefully they'll never drop lens based IS... It's a better system, especially with longer telephotos, which is where you need it the most. Given that Canon places a lot of emphasis on sports shooters, I can't see them getting switching over any time soon.

Body IS wouldn't be a bad thing if they could throw it in for free, but I'm not sure how much more you'd have to pay for a camera with it integrated.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you are going with this.

My olympus has it and it was $300 less than a similar canon, you can turn it on and off so I don't really see any negatives. Throw on a Leica IS lens you can switch it off on the camera body with the press of a button.

Have you ever actualy compared in body IS to in lens IS? There was a review I saw that actualy showed the in body IS on e510working better than in lens IS on a Leica Telephoto IS lens. You can see the effects of IS in the live view on the e510/e520. The e520 also has options for turning off IS in one direction to help with hand held panning shots. It also allows for lenses to me MUCH smaller and hence you can take more of them with you with in a smaller space and less weight too. Theres not really any negatives to equiping a camera with built in IS ESPECIALY if your going to use it for 1080p videos. I'd hate to have all that camera shake in my videos, or be forced to pay an extra $400-$1000 per lens.

Why do you feel it is such a superior system? I mean it is adjusted slightly for each lens but I don't see it being worth double the money every time you purchase a lens. The extra cost of IS in one high end canon lens is more money than my camera with a good quality glass lens on it. Adding the technology is definately affordable,a nd can be compact since my e520 is about the same size as the XSI (but lighter weight) but since there are many canon fanboys, they could jack up the price for it I suppose and people would still but it, but they certainly would not HAVE to increase the price much since they are already making a fortune off these.. Canon and Nikon do make really nice top of the line stuff, but lets not compare a 30,000 dollar camera to a $500 one.

I was going to try a nikon camera this time around but the lack of IS (or whatever they want to call it) was just too much for the price you pay. Now that video is becoming integrated, lack of IS will be an even larger problem. To the extent that I would just assume to buy a seperate HD camcorder and toss it in my slingshot 200 next to the other lenses.....
 
I've used both, and a lens based system makes it much easier to compose through the viewfinder when you're using a long lens. I'm not saying that in-body IS is a bad thing. I'm just saying it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for Canon to spend a lot of effort putting IS in its bodies, given the amount of development its put into lens based IS. There are plenty of cheaper and midrange IS lenses you can get (17-85, 28-135, 70-300, 18-55, 55-250) that aren't significantly larger or heavier than their non-IS counterparts. On the other end, all their long telephotos except the 400 f/5.6 already have IS. After this, what's left? The ultrawides don't need it as much, so all you have left are a handful of primes in the 85-200mm range that could really benefit from it, and the 24-70 f/2.8.
 
Its still a Killer for me. I'm happy with in the body IS as it saves me $100's per lens. With the amount of money I already saved by using in the body IS, I could have bought another camera and a couple lenses. So your saying it does not make sense because Canon profites greatly by forcing its customers to pay $100's of dollars more for each high end glass lens.

As you said the in the lens IS has a few advantages such as that you can see it in action vs just trusting in the body IS to work. Thats not really worth an extra $100's per lens to me and many others.

However people would still buy in the lens IS lenses if they needed them, but it kills the deal (or at least it should) with anyone wanting high end glass that does not cost a fortune. What if I want a telephoto but don't want to HAVE to spend well over a grand for good quality glass?

The fact is you still need to pay more than a pretty penny to get good glass and IS with canon (and VR with nikon). What if I want to use high end glass without paying the extra $600 for the IS, or what if I want to shoot with midrange glass but I'm forced to spend an extra $300 on a lens with IS because I need that feature?

Or are you just saying that since you already invested $1000's in getting the IS version lenses that you personaly don't care about IS built into the body since your already set? From what I have sceen the Canon IS lenses are huge compared to similar 4/3 lenses with no IS.

This is why canon and nikon lost me this time around. I have always used Canon in the past and I would have stuck with them, but IS was the primary reason I switched to Olympus products. I was looking into an XSI with a zoom lens. Since the difference in cost of the IS version was as much as another camera that has IS built in, I could not justify it. I found that with olympus you get 95% of the camera for 50% of the price of the canon setup. Not to mention I will never HAVE to buy an IS lens. I still can if I want to, but the in the body IS already works excelent.

Now that they are adding HD video to the cameras (A feature I want) I would consider switching back, but having to spend $100's for in the lens IS on a single lens again I just can't justify it. An extra Car payment just to get IS seems crazy and forces alot of people to buy lenses without the IS feature, I could just go out and buy a HD camcorder that already has IS built in rather than get an SLR that takes videos....

I doubt Canon would have to spend ALOT of effort in making an SLR with IS built into the body, but maybe you right and it is too late to change the firmware in the lens to work with a sweet system like that. They do offer several point n shoot cameras that already have it, so its not a new concept for them.
 
Given what you've said, it seems like Olympus has the better system for you. I'm just saying that there are many reasons why Canon uses lens based IS, and for a lot of people, it's worth it.
 
For me a lens based IS system is better (like I said for me).

For one it is one less thing that can go wrong with my camera, the movement is from inside my lens and not from within my body. There is just something about a lot of gyros moving my sensor around.

Also IS stabilizes not only the image on the sensor, they also stabilize the image in the viewfinder too. That helps me compose my shot. Also IS is improving. So one lens can give you a extra 2 stops while another lens can give you 4 stops. If IS is in the camera, then I am stuck at what ever the current technology allows me.

Plus IS is optimized for longer/different lengths. Basically the image moves around a lot faster and with much greater amplitude at 600mm than at 17mm.

They can tune the image stabilization for each lens specifically and it also has a positional advantage by being in center of the lens. If you're stabilizing a camera you're going to want to do it from the center and not from the back of the camera.

Don't get me wrong, I think it would be cool to add IS to my primes under 100mm. But at what cost, degraded image quality?
 
Yeah I agree with fugu, the Olympus system works for you. I saw a lot of Olympus shooters at the Olympics, red carpet events, superbowl and national geographic ;), just kidding I don't think i saw any......
 
darktiger said:
For me a lens based IS system is better (like I said for me).

For one it is one less thing that can go wrong with my camera, the movement is from inside my lens and not from within my body. There is just something about a lot of gyros moving my sensor around.

Also IS stabilizes not only the image on the sensor, they also stabilize the image in the viewfinder too. That helps me compose my shot. Also IS is improving. So one lens can give you a extra 2 stops while another lens can give you 4 stops. If IS is in the camera, then I am stuck at what ever the current technology allows me.

Plus IS is optimized for longer/different lengths. Basically the image moves around a lot faster and with much greater amplitude at 600mm than at 17mm.

They can tune the image stabilization for each lens specifically and it also has a positional advantage by being in center of the lens. If you're stabilizing a camera you're going to want to do it from the center and not from the back of the camera.

Don't get me wrong, I think it would be cool to add IS to my primes under 100mm. But at what cost, degraded image quality?
Click to expand...

Degraded image quality? I want to see some proof of that. Also I really don't see how IS helps to compose a shot. It's a feature that can be turned on and off, also I can use lenses that have IS built into them if I choose to do so.. This is really all a bunch of BS. I'm not saying canons are bad cameras at all, just that there are plenty of other alternatives that let you achieve the same thing. As for upgradability and improvements, its much easier to upgrade Body based IS system than it is to upgrade a lens based IS. When a new improvement comes out and I only need to buy a new camera body, where as for lens based IS I have to replace my entire lens collection!

It sounds like its worth paying an extra $600 or so per lens for you for Slightly better IS, but for the typical person I don't believe the difference is worth the price, and if the IS for a particular telephoto lens is far superior then you still would have the choise to buy the lens with IS vs using the in the body IS. Sure it is optimized for each lens, but why can't in the body IS also be "somewhat" optimized for each lens via firmware or upating the camera body itself? My e520 body cost a while $420, which is less than the IS feature on a single high grade canon lens. It seems to work fine on my 200mm telephoto lens, and anything beyond that and you will probably be shooting from a tripod anyways. Also please show me the lense where IS gives you 4 stops! I'm interested in reading up on this as I'm still new to the hobby and have been doing alot of research.

darktiger said:
Yeah I agree with fugu, the Olympus system works for you. I saw a lot of Olympus shooters at the Olympics, red carpet events, superbowl and national geographic ;), just kidding I don't think i saw any......
Click to expand...
Your lucky you get to work with National Geographic to check out there gear, and even luckier that you got to go to the olympics!

But it is still a total fanboy comment as I would have expected on this forum. Like I said, lets not compare $20,000 cameras to $520 cameras. It's quite obvious Canon and Nikon both have better high end equipment than olympus. Olympus' top of the line SLR sells for less than $1,500 not 30,000 like the canons higher end. MOST people don't need a $3,000 camera let alone anything beyond that to take photos for the news at the olympics. If my work was funding the camera then sure every lense I would buy would be super high grade and have in the lens with IS/VR, but that is not the case for MOST (99% of) people. I have been browsing the forums and canons have a huge fanbase here. I know I used to only buy canon as well.

If canon had in the body IS (really valuable feature for most people) I would not hesitate to trade up for a camera that does HD video. I'm glad the technology is there now I just need it to trickle down to a manufacture that has IS built into the body as well. Theres really no argument that IS built into the body is a HUGE feature and has absolutly NO disadvantages over a camera that does not. It is a feature that can be turned on and off depending on the lens you are using.

Here is a video comparing both technologies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPdy52mR6Io

IS, (Lens or body) +HD video would certainly be very sweet!

I'm all for adding video unlike some others. Taking videos at offroad events our out in the Imperial Sand Dunes from my camera could really come in handy. A short clip of my friend or myself juping a razor back, or racing someone up the hill etc. I don't need to capture enough video to invest in a HD Video camera,and carrying 2 devices around with me would be a hassle on the ATV or in many other cases where I it is already a pain to carry an SLR (unless I can find a somewhat inexpensive one for a helmit cam). The ocasional video to capture the moment in a way that photos can not is certainly worth while for me!
 
You say you don't want to compare $500 dollar cameras to $30,000 cameras, but then you go and pull a figure of $600 per lens for IS. Unless you're buying L telephotos, your numbers are off the mark. Canon makes two very cheap, entry level IS lenses: the 18-55 that sells for ~$175, and the 55-250 which goes for ~$275. Looking at Olympus's lineup, the 14-42 is about $175, and the 40-150 is ~$275 also. Where are the savings?

Also, when you're trying to track a moving subject, lens based IS helps you keep your viewfinder on the subject. If you're using a long lens, it's amazing how much of a difference it makes.
 
fugu, not only his numbers were off the mark, but he just got a olympus 520 as his first SLR. So he basing his experience off of no knowledge. I can easily say that I because I borrowed my friends e520 for a few days to test, I have also tested sony slr's with is in the camera really it's no comparison IQ wise. In fact I lent him my 30D with a 24-105IS well it turned out that he liked the camera that he sold his e520 to a family member that just wanted a glorified P&S and he ended up with a 40D and 24-70. Seemed he like the Canon camera better than his olympus, the images just popped was his words. Just as I said before, each to their own. Some people want a gloried P&S and some people want a decent camera that takes good pictures and is reliable. My P&S has a sensor shift IS and I think it is a great camera, but at ISO1600 my DSLR performs better. At 3200 my images are still good.

But the new mkII iso 12800 is just to awesome, no noise. Also ISO25600 is pretty cool, I might not need IS anymore :)
 
fugu said:
Also, when you're trying to track a moving subject, lens based IS helps you keep your viewfinder on the subject. If you're using a long lens, it's amazing how much of a difference it makes.
Click to expand...

So true. Helps if you are shooting sporting evens or animals. At 300 and greater lens IS becomes more useful.
 
fugu said:
You say you don't want to compare $500 dollar cameras to $30,000 cameras, but then you go and pull a figure of $600 per lens for IS. Unless you're buying L telephotos, your numbers are off the mark. Canon makes two very cheap, entry level IS lenses: the 18-55 that sells for ~$175, and the 55-250 which goes for ~$275. Looking at Olympus's lineup, the 14-42 is about $175, and the 40-150 is ~$275 also. Where are the savings?

Also, when you're trying to track a moving subject, lens based IS helps you keep your viewfinder on the subject. If you're using a long lens, it's amazing how much of a difference it makes.
Click to expand...

Your right! not much of an advantage for the Kit grade glass, but most people don't buy kit grade lenses. Take a look at their mid to high-end glass and the savings becomes more apparent. I own the 14-54, 50-200 and 50mm prime all of which I saved over buying low F lenses (weather sealed) etc with IS built in.

As far as shooting at 1600 ISO, Canon Nikon Olympus all suck at this level of camera IMO, they all have too much noise, the one place where I saw the canons and especially Nikon’s shine (for cameras costing just a little more money than the Olympus) was at ISO 800 and above. Honestly even ISO 800 shots are not acceptable to me from any of them, I tend to stick to ISO 100 or 200 whenever possible which is the majority of the time.

As for the friend that traded his e520 for the canon, was he even shooting in raw? Also the 40d is a much higher end camera than the e520 since it is double the price! The JPEG compression on the e520 is tricky and by default the lowest compression available is fine, not Super Fine (you have to program that in!). Hell I don't even bother shooting JPEG anymore so I don't really care about how great JPEG photos look. I get better post processing in Lightroom and Photoshop. Saying the e520 is a glorified P&S that’s just ridiculous, I was done with this post until you said that, the sensor shift IS in the e520 is excellent compared to many P&S, its not even close, and your really showing you fanboysim in that comment calling it a glorified P&S camera.

Here is a somewhat poor comparison of the Canon Lens vs an Olympus in price, its the closest I could come up with that had about the same zoom range. The Canon lens being somewhat nicer due to consistent F2.8, but zoom varies based on model. Thus I will use the XTI which is e520's competition at the same level. Also at 200mm the lens based IS is starting to shine over the sensor shift IS.

116-320 vs Olympus range of 100-400.

at 320mm the F on this lens would probably be around 3, which is similar but not the same as 2.8...

1,677.95
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200m...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1222719417&sr=1-1

979.95
http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-Digit...2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1222719642&sr=1-2

The savings is pretty apparent although this may be somewhat of a bad example. I might go back to canon if they offered in body IS alternative. I'm not saying to get rid on in the lens IS as that would be stupid as well so please stop arguing points I'm not trying to make! I doubt Olympus is going anywhere anytime soon with the great reviews they have been getting, and with all the features they keep bringing to the table while other companies have to catch up. (but not HD video which is a feature I could really use)

An ideal camera for me would likely be a Nikon or Canon XTI (size and price wise) with sensor shift IS (plus in the lens IS for those crazy zooms I will never use, but would have the option to purchase to help me frame shots as necessary), that also does HD video. I see this in the near future, minus the in the sensor shift IS :(

I'd almost be willing to switch for on of these new HD video SLRs (although I'm waiting for one to come out more in my price range!). If I already had a 5D MKI, I would probably go for the 5D MKII as soon as I could find a sale on it. The video feature would absolutely sell me for allot of the photography I plan to be doing. Most of the video clips I would need would be less than a minute long, but there’s some things that are just too fast paced or random to capture in photos, and would not allow for the time to switch between SLR and video camera. A picture of someone rolling their Sand Rail down Pattons Hill is one thing (or a series of shots :) ), but flipping a switch and catching it on video at 1080p is truly awesome!

The speed of an SLR is one of the reason I made the switch over P&S, having a seperate camera is not the same as having Video abilities at the flip of a switch. I'm really glad that Canon and Nikon are bringing this to the table, now I just have to wait until the technology trickles down to a more reasonably priced camera for myself.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
I think inbody IS would be useful especially for primes like 35/50/85mm. Personnally I cannot get use the the four thirds system. Noise is horrible, and the depth of field is to small. I would miss the bokeh of 1.2-2.8. I enjoy taking portraits and shots like that, four thirds systems are not the best with portraits. Another reason why I did not like the olympus is the crop factor. 2.0X is a lot, I shot a lot of landscapes and looking at the lens lineup, no thanks. If I shot telephoto all the time, then maybe. One reason why crop factor cameras are noisy is because the size of their sensor.

As far as shooting at 1600 ISO, Canon Nikon Olympus all suck at this level of camera IMO, they all have too much noise, the one place where I saw the canons and especially Nikon’s shine (for cameras costing just a little more money than the Olympus) was at ISO 800 and above. Honestly even ISO 800 shots are not acceptable to me from any of them, I tend to stick to ISO 100 or 200 whenever possible which is the majority of the time.
Click to expand...

I dont think you have seen the images from a Canon 5D at ISO1600, no noise. Also with the Nikon D3 or D700 I barely can see noise at ISO6400. But then again when I shot with my Rebel XTi, I would never go past ISO800 because of noise.

Back to this thread, the sample pictures of ISO12800 and 25600 are awesome. Hardly any noise at ISO12800, I cannot wait. Come on Canon.
 
darktiger said:
I think inbody IS would be useful especially for primes like 35/50/85mm. Personnally I cannot get use the the four thirds system. Noise is horrible, and the depth of field is to small. I would miss the bokeh of 1.2-2.8. I enjoy taking portraits and shots like that, four thirds systems are not the best with portraits. Another reason why I did not like the olympus is the crop factor. 2.0X is a lot, I shot a lot of landscapes and looking at the lens lineup, no thanks. If I shot telephoto all the time, then maybe. One reason why crop factor cameras are noisy is because the size of their sensor.



I dont think you have seen the images from a Canon 5D at ISO1600, no noise. Also with the Nikon D3 or D700 I barely can see noise at ISO6400. But then again when I shot with my Rebel XTi, I would never go past ISO800 because of noise.

Back to this thread, the sample pictures of ISO12800 and 25600 are awesome. Hardly any noise at ISO12800, I cannot wait. Come on Canon.
Click to expand...


Oh I have sceen them from the Canon 5D. It is awesome! I was looking at comparable XTI/XSI, olympus does not have a camera similar to the 5D :) I'm still a canon fan don't get me wrong! Tempted to try nikon as well so no1 cann call me a fanboy :) Did you try the 50mm prime with the 4/3 camera? I can get quite a bit of bokeh, although maybe not as much. The system is new and the e520 improves some of the noise issues over the e510. Still not on par with other systems. I wish I could have a 5D MKII though ;)
 
Justintoxicated said:
Your right! not much of an advantage for the Kit grade glass, but most people don't buy kit grade lenses. Take a look at their mid to high-end glass and the savings becomes more apparent. I own the 14-54, 50-200 and 50mm prime all of which I saved over buying low F lenses (weather sealed) etc with IS built in.
.
Click to expand...

It's not an exact comparison, but I'd put those two lenses up against the 17-85 f/4-5.6 and the 70-300 f/3.5-5.6 from Canon. The Canon lenses are roughly a stop slower, but the high ISO performance of an entry level Canon sensor is about a stop better than that of the e520. Combine that with a greater crop factor on the Olympus which will help to equalize the DoF when comparing equivalent focal lengths, and you're looking at similar performance.

The 17-85 is about $500 compared to $400 for the 14-54. The 70-300 is about $600, compared to $1000 for the 50-200. Looks like a wash...
 
Thats more on par with a entry level Olympus lens (the 70-300 which is F 4-5.6) . The olympus premium glass should be closer to the better canon glass not Canons premium vs olympus kit grade glass.

Olympus makes somme good glass, especialy for the price, no doubt and there are advantages/disadvantages of the 4/3rd system but thats not what this post is about. I was just hoping canon would introduce in body IS, thats all. Also now your saying the High ISO performance is maybe a stop better than the e520 in certain conditions, but like I said who uses those high ISOs on comparable cameras Canon XSI, Nikon or whatever, they all look pretty poor IMO.

The debate is over, thats not what I am here to do, and that was not the purpose of my post. Debates where things are taken to the extremes are always poor and benefit no one. Putting olympus high grade glas vs canons cheaper glass when commparing price, but then using canons $3.5k camera bidies vs olympuses' (hmmm thats weird to say olympuses...) $500 camera to compare quality etc.

Why would you compare a 70-300 to a 50-200 when both companies make a 70-300 with the exact same F/Stops. ...Sorry its no where near a wash...

So same comparison....
70-300 F4-5.6 Olympus
$314
http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-70-30...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1222730729&sr=8-1

70-300 F4-5.6 Canon
$549
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-300m...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1222730799&sr=8-1

The olympus 70-300 is supposed to be an excelent lens for the price, however the 50-200 is obviously quite a bit better!

The price difference increases only more when you go to higher grade glass. SWD lenses are VERY fast from olympus, I don't own the 50-200 SWD I own the older version which I was able to purchase for $620 (same lens different focusing system), that's $1000 more for the new canon lens (very bad price comparison used vs new)...The reg 50-200 (non SWD) is still MUCH faster than their cheaper glass. The SWD system is one of the fastest focusing systems out right now, but only when paired with the E3....
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
I'm comparing equivalent focal lengths, exposures, bodies, and optics. The Canon 70-300 gives you a range of 112-480 on a 1.6x camera, and the 50-200 gives you 100-400 on 4/3. The Canon lens is a stop slower, but Canon's 1.6x sensors are still a stop better than the ones Olympus makes. I won't hesitate to use a Canon at ISO800, and 1600 is quite usable if you nail the exposure. The Rebel bodies sell for under $1000 (last I checked you could get an XT for $400, and it's high ISO noise is equal to that on a 20D), so you don't need to spend $3500 on a Canon body to get this performance. Finally, the 70-300IS is just as sharp as my 70-200 f/4 L. I've compared the two, and optically I can't tell them apart.

Moving up to high end glass, you can compare the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS to the Olympus 35-100 f/2. The Canon is 1700, the Olympus is 2100. Again, we're in the same ballpark. So my point is, for roughly the same amount of money, you can get a Canon system that will perform similarly to the Olympus system, and still have stabilized lenses over a similar focal length.

Of course if you shoot exclusively primes with Canon, you're out of luck getting stabilized lenses at any focal length under 300mm. That's one area where the in body IS gives you an option that just isn't there when you're waiting for the IS version of lens to be released.
 
fugu said:
I'm comparing equivalent focal lengths, exposures, bodies, and optics. The Canon 70-300 gives you a range of 112-480 on a 1.6x camera, and the 50-200 gives you 100-400 on 4/3. The Canon lens is a stop slower, but Canon's 1.6x sensors are still a stop better than the ones Olympus makes. I won't hesitate to use a Canon at ISO800, and 1600 is quite usable if you nail the exposure. The Rebel bodies sell for under $1000 (last I checked you could get an XT for $400, and it's high ISO noise is equal to that on a 20D), so you don't need to spend $3500 on a Canon body to get this performance. Finally, the 70-300IS is just as sharp as my 70-200 f/4 L. I've compared the two, and optically I can't tell them apart.

Moving up to high end glass, you can compare the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS to the Olympus 35-100 f/2. The Canon is 1700, the Olympus is 2100. Again, we're in the same ballpark. So my point is, for roughly the same amount of money, you can get a Canon system that will perform similarly to the Olympus system, and still have stabilized lenses over a similar focal length.

Of course if you shoot exclusively primes with Canon, you're out of luck getting stabilized lenses at any focal length under 300mm. That's one area where the in body IS gives you an option that just isn't there when you're waiting for the IS version of lens to be released.
Click to expand...

Now your comparing high grade canon lens to super high grade olympus. I would not even buy a super high grade lense for the e520, that would be somewhat of a waste.

This is also a poor comparison!

My comparison above makes the most sense since both LENSES are equivilant (70-300) and have the SAME F-values. The body your putting them on will cause different effects just as putting a canon lens on one canon SLR will give you different results than another one.

Notice the price difference, this carries out as the grade of the glass increases, the extra money for IS increases proportionately.

Apples to apples not apples to oranges. I'm not talking about extremes or situations out of the norm. Taking stuff to the extreme to debate a point is getting rather old. It makes things seem as they are not. The Canon "in Lense IS" DOES cost more. It IS better, especialy at longer focal lengths, but it DOES cost quite a bit more. The difference in the cost of one higher grade lens would buy me a new camera body!

Here is the Sigma 70-200mm for olympus (camera uses in the body IS so the IS is free)
$799, its even cheaper than the olympus 50-200 SWD.
Full retail cost and is not marked down even on amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-70-200m...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1222746235&sr=1-1

Its about the same price for a canon, but you won't get any sort of IS!
Review can be found here, it is a much better value, and if you were to add IS, the value becomes even better and may work as an alternative to canon's IS lens that csots TWICE as much, grated the quality is a bit better on the canon lens and the canon lens is weather sealed like the olympus 50-200. http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/ Unfortunately they have not reviewed the 50-200 lens or ths particular lens on the e520.

We can play this game all day and night, but the fact remains that in the body IS is a great feature, and saves money on lenses. It works well enough for me that I would save alot of money on lenses for a canon or nikon body. If I needed a really huge telephoto, or if I do enough photography with a particular lens that I need to see the IS working through the viewfinder then I might still pay the difference and buy the a lens with IS and turn off the sensor shift IS as I can already do. Also In addition to turning off the IS I can set it to horizontal or vertical IS only, canon IS lenses should do this as well...

As in the body IS improves, all I need to do is buy a new camera body, not a new set of IS lenses, or if it became better than in the lens IS for a particular lens I could just turn off the lens IS etc.

I'm not bashing this camera, I would love to have one, its better than anything olympus has out. They have added 1080p video which is a feature I would certainly use, I would however also wish for canon to add sensor shift IS in the future. It would be a really great feature and could certainly cause me to switch back over to the dark side. If not on this SLR, add it to a cheaper more comparable camera like the XSI...
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
It looks like we're not going to agree on whether it's better to compare lenses by themselves or to compare the entire system. It seems like Olympus has a good system that works for you. Personally, I prefer having lenses with IS, and I hope Canon never decides to "build IS into the cameras rather than the lenses."
 
You can argue this back & forth as they both have pros & cons (& indeed you can actually argue some of the same exact points from either side as a pro/con) but ultimately current generations of both perform very similarly - let's say to within 1/2 a stop.

A lot of the fud is more marketing than anything else but Canon & Nikon obviously believed that in-body was good enough that they had to start countering it at a lower level hence the redesign of the kit lenses etc. with IS/VR.
These are also the same people (at least in Canon's case) that said that you couldn't build an in-body stabilised FF sensor - until Sony went & did it ....
 
Also please show me the lense where IS gives you 4 stops! I'm interested in reading up on this as I'm still new to the hobby and have been doing alot of research.
Click to expand...
The latest Canon IS system is rated at 4 stops - you can find it in the 70-200 f/4L

But it is still a total fanboy comment as I would have expected on this forum. Like I said, lets not compare $20,000 cameras to $520 cameras. It's quite obvious Canon and Nikon both have better high end equipment than olympus. Olympus' top of the line SLR sells for less than $1,500 not 30,000 like the canons higher end.
Click to expand...
20-30k is Medium Format Digital Back land, not DSLR. Those would be truly pointless comparisons since a normal (50mm eqv) Hasselblad lens costs over 2k, there is no such thing as IS, they have single point AF systems and the back shoot at maybe a frame and a half a second (the P25 I used last night is closer to a frame even 1.5 seconds).

The problem with in body IS is that you are moving a point far away from the nodal point of the lens, where as with in lens IS the IS group is at (or very close to) the nodal point. This means much smaller shifts are needed to compensate for the same amount of movement - which translates into the ability to provide more stops of handholdability. The other problem with in body IS is as the chip moves further towards the edges of the image circle it moves into increasingly worse quality areas. This is a problem both for FF cameras and effective FF cameras (like 4/3s or if Canon made an EF-S body with in body IS). It's not a huge problem, but a lot of lenses already don't have great corners on FF bodies. The huge advantage is stabilized short primes.
 
I wish my short primes had IS :(

That said I cant wait until I get those primes on my 5d mkii :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top