IS LENSES OR IS BUILT IN CAMERA?

[ZIN]

If IS is such a nice feature why don't they just build it into the camera like Pentax K10D? I have been looking for a DSLR and really think this feature would be a great plus so do I just buy the Pentax or buy the Canon XTI and pay a higher price for my lenses?
Is this something Canon or NIKON may be considering in the future?

 

[Milhouse]

In lens usually preforms better, but I'm not sure how noticable the difference is. In body IS is cheaper since you could get away with buying regular lenses. If you look at the canon lenses the ones with IS are a couple of hundred dollars more expensive then their non IS counter part.

 

[ZIN]

Thats my point is it better to buy the Pentax K10D with IS built in or not?
I know when you buy a canon or nikon lens with IS you pay more for that feature so back to my question ... Is one better than the other and is nikon or canon planning on puting IS into there cameras or no?

 

[Sideburns]

Yes, Canon's lens system is better than Pentax's body system. Much better.
It costs more, but I would tend to think it's worth it.
Nikon's system is also better. Sometimes the lenses aren't too bad though, cause you have the autofocus motor in the body a lot of the time.

 

[Milhouse]

I would say that Canon/Nikon will stick to their in lens IS. Think about it, if they made in body IS that would make all their IS lenses obsolete. Thats a lot of $$$ lost. The pros would probably still buy the in lens IS L series lens but the average photographer would not, I wouldn't.

I just bought the Canon XTi, and was considering the Pentax 10d. I too liked the fact that Pentax had in camera IS. I decided on the Canon because I liked the way it felt in my hands and I liked the colors that it generated over the Pentax, mainly the whites (as viewed on dpreview.com). The color difference may just be because of setting differences between the shots/cameras.

I figured that at my caliber I wouldn't own many lenses. Probably one telephoto lens, a wide lens and maybe a portrait prime lens. The wide lens doesn't really need an IS since Camera shake is less apparent at wide than at telephoto. I would get IS on my telephoto. I would also use a tripod, to reduce camera shake. I don't mind carrying one around. I borrowed a cheap one from a friend and really enjoyed using it (once I got used to people looking at me funny). It fit in my back pocket and extended to about 4 ft. It is flimsy, but it did the trick. IS is good but not as good as a tripod.

I also found that there is more choice for Canon lenses than Pentax, new and used. That may change because I think that Pentax is coming out with a new line of lenses, but I'm not sure. Now that I have my Canon and have researched used lenses a bit more, it seems that Nikon has more offerings than canon.

Recap, I chose Canon because of lens choice, and I will probably only need IS on one lens , and will usually have a tripod with me for the shots that need IS. I know that this doesn't quite answer your question, but hope that it helps a little.

 

[ZIN]

Thanks for your explanation it makes sence that was what I was looking for.

 

[EljayK004]

Here's a link from PopPhoto.com that goes into detail of the benifits of each system. From their results it looks as if lens-based systems work better than the camera-based systems right now, but in the future who knows... I personally, prefer a tripod to stabilization. It's just my preference. A lot of the stuff I shoot wouldn't work well with longer exposures in low light anyways, which means I've gotta crank up the ISO, get faster lenses, or use a flash.

http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4615/image-stabilization-special-stop-the-shake.html

 

[soylentgreen]

Also, I rather have it break in my lens and just swap out another lens and keep shooting instead of my entire camera body having to be repaired.

 

[EljayK004]

Also, I rather have it break in my lens and just swap out another lens and keep shooting instead of my entire camera body having to be repaired.

Excellent point. I've never even thought of that, but that could be a major diaster when (note I didn't say if, its always when) it breaks during something important. I'm sure the reliability on the in-camera systems is pretty good, but everyone knows "Murphy's Laws," at least with lens-based systems you could switch out the lens and still keep shooting.

 

[Iron Flatline]

Also, I rather have it break in my lens and just swap out another lens and keep shooting instead of my entire camera body having to be repaired.

I disagree here. When you're out on a pro-shoot that may be correct in the sense that a broken body means you can't keep shooting, but as a long-term investment the opposite is actually true. In the digital age (at least for the next several years) expect your camera body to have an upgrade path of every few years, but your lenses should last longer. And if the IS / VR breaks, you can still keep shooting.

Canon and Nikon have IS / VR in the lens because it was developed before digital photography. You can move the sensor around to compensate for shake, but you can't do that with a roll of film, obviously. Pentax and Sony have in-camera solutions because they're not beholden to legacy technology. An argument could be made that in-camera is the more advanced solution, but that on-lens IS comes with more experience.

If it works, it works... but chances are they work differently. The on-lens solution by Canon is pretty sophisticated. The IS on a long lens good for sports or wildlife has several settings. Not sure about the in-camera systems, but I would assume the technology yields varying results based on the lens it is compensating for.

Be wary of buzzword-compliant technology.

 

[Alpha]

Well said.

 

[RacePhoto]

Lots of good reasoning here, and I don't know for sure if the film IS is the ultimate answer. Makes sense.

But how many people buy a TV with DVD and VCR built in? When one part breaks, the whole thing is junk, or you send the whole thing in for repairs. However component systems, you have individual parts and can choose what you want.

I'd scream if an IS was built in to the camera and I had to buy lenses made only for that camera. How about Sony memory cards, which are old Sony. I'll never buy anything that uses proprietary parts, if I can help it.

If you buy lenses with autofocus, and it was built into the camera, they would all be the same as your one camera, but with newer technology, you can buy a better lens, with better autofocus motors, and still have the same camera. Could better IS mean you change the lens, and get an upgrade, instead of an expensive camera?

ps my argument is flawed because it's the processor in the camera that controls the IS and autofocus.

 

[Garbz]

Actually the IS and VR systems are physically controlled by the lens. They do their own detection and servo actuations. The AF is controlled by the camera.

I could offer one possible argument against shaking a sensor around. Other than the reliability that people have mentioned so far think about quality. A sensor is not some chip you throw in a device and hit the autoroute button in Altium to make a circuit board for it. The signals going across them are so sensitive that if they aren't read our in a certain order the quality drops. So now the question becomes can you develop an interconnection system which is as good as that afforded by the design of a fixed sensor but with the ability for the wires to remain flexible AND fit servo units around the sensor too. Also bear in mind that these units will be working while the sensor is capturing, the ability for noise to be induced in the sensor as a result is all too easy from an engineering perspective.

Mind you I have no idea if this is a problem or not of if the quality is actually affected in this way, but I am putting it out on the table than an in-lens IS/VR system will not effect sensor quality.