Canon develops Hybrid image stabilization system

[calebk]

I think camera will bulit in IS. I read the website above thread.

Which part of the site says the new technology will be in a camera? :think:

It says at least twice on the page:

The technology will be incorporated in an interchangeable single lens reflex (SLR) camera lens planned for commercial release before the end of 2009.

 

[Sivakis]

Lol create an IS-able camera body that can work together with existing IS lenses? So instead of a 4-stop IS 70-200/f4, you could get a 6-stop IS combo. Now wouldn't that be interesting

 

[grantyale]

I think camera will bulit in IS. I read the website above thread.

Lol create an IS-able camera body that can work together with existing IS lenses? So instead of a 4-stop IS 70-200/f4, you could get a 6-stop IS combo. Now wouldn't that be interesting

:lovegrin: That'd be great indeed

 

[lightning]

Why not save your brain cells to do something more productive then speculating here? What is the point? Canon will employ you for making the right guess?:dunno:

 

[Cartman2000]

I more interested in Canon coming out a FF camera (with less spec than 5D MkII) that cost below $3K SGD.

I also want this 15mp FF without video will do fine

 

[doodah]

If you look at the timeline of lenses released by Canon in recent years, they have allowed 3rd parties and rivals to catch up. I am not sure if we need another angular stabilizing in lens. I would think camera in-built stabilizing may be the way to go considering all other players are going this option to capture market shares from the N and the C. Lenses should be made the constant in a camera system without complex electronics. I would think Canon spend more R&D to make their lenses compete with the CZ and the Leicas in terms of optical sharpness, clarity and contrast may reap more benefit. Afterall, I am more willing to spend more on a optically superior lens than one that has a new IS system. Imagine if all lens mounts are being standardized, how many people will actually continue to buy L lenses? I may be the devil's advocate on this one. I am not really excited by this new technology. Anyone share my views?

a) True to some extent but not completely. Nikon has surpassed them with their 14-24 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/2.8 lenses. However, these lenses are not without their shortcomings (lack of front threading for a dream landscape lens? lack of VR on the all-important 24-70 mm range?). Sigma has some nifty prime lenses... but it's Sigma... reliability, anyone?

Pray tell me, who has the equivalent of their 17 f/4 TSE and 24 f/2.8 TSE lenses in terms of technology?

b) Until Nikon releases in-camera stabilization first, Canon is not going to bother with their other competitors who still have a long way to go in terms of market shares. Small market share = no say. Remember Konica-Minolta had the first mass-produced autofocus camera? But no one gave a d**n about them until Nikon and Canon (both only caught up 3 years later) adopted the technology. Between Nikon and Canon, it's a matter of who blinks first. Both companies have some sort of patents for in-camera stabilization.

c) Isn't the 70-200 f/4 IS just as good if not better than the non-IS version?

d) Who cares about CZ and Leica? They are just small market players. :bsmilie:

e) You may have no interest in IS lenses, but I DO. I desperately want a > 150mm IS/USM Macro lens. The closest competitor is to mount a Sigma 150 f/2.8 lens on an Olympus body. Unfortunately, from user feedback, the AF is painfully slow on the Sigma 4/3 mount.

f) I do NOT share your views.

Why not save your brain cells to do something more productive then speculating here? What is the point? Canon will employ you for making the right guess?:dunno:

Why bother to post a response if you think it's a waste of your brain cells? The whole point of speculation is FUN and perhaps even hope. I have said this many times to my friends and will say it again: whoever releases an IS/USM (or equivalent technologies) enabled telephoto macro lens will win my eternal loyalty. :bsmilie:

Edit: Since Canon specifically points out their new HIS system is effective for macro shooting, I think there is some hope that my dream lens will soon be realized. :bsmilie:

 

[Gizmore]

If you look at the timeline of lenses released by Canon in recent years, they have allowed 3rd parties and rivals to catch up. I am not sure if we need another angular stabilizing in lens. I would think camera in-built stabilizing may be the way to go considering all other players are going this option to capture market shares from the N and the C. Lenses should be made the constant in a camera system without complex electronics. I would think Canon spend more R&D to make their lenses compete with the CZ and the Leicas in terms of optical sharpness, clarity and contrast may reap more benefit. Afterall, I am more willing to spend more on a optically superior lens than one that has a new IS system. Imagine if all lens mounts are being standardized, how many people will actually continue to buy L lenses? I may be the devil's advocate on this one. I am not really excited by this new technology. Anyone share my views?

2008
September
EF 24mm f1.4L II USM
EF-S 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 IS

January
EF 200mm f2L IS USM

2007
August
EF 14mm f2.8L II USM

February
EF 16-35mm f2.8 L USM MkII

2006
August
EF 70-200mm f4L IS USM
EF 50mm f1.2L USM

February
EF 85mm f1.2L MkII
EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM

2005
October
EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM
EF 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM

February
EF-S 60mm f2.8 Macro USM

2004
September
EF 28-90mm f4-5.6 Mk III

August
EF-S 10-22 f3.5-4.5 USM
EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM

May
EF 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
EF 28-300mm f3.5-5.6L IS USM

2003
October
EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6

September
EF 55-200mm f4.5-5.6 Mk II USM
2002
November
EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM

October
EF 90-300mm f4-5.6
EF 90-300mm f4.5-5.6 USM

2001
November
EF 16-35mm f2.8L USM

August
EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM

2000
September
EF 400mm f4 DO IS USM
EF 28-90mm f4-5.6 Mk III
EF 28-200mm f3.5-5.6 USM

The improved image quality, unfortunately when perceived by different individuals, yield varying opinions. therefore, it is not going to be an effective marketing tool to deploy. there are people who claims CZ are better and there are those who feels that Canon lens are better.

but, new technology will certainly get people to look up.

 

[doodah]

From a year ago:

My dream lens coming true? Lighter weight, I hope.

 

[An drew]

Consumers really can do with IS in body. Then it only makes the selection of lenses easier and cut out all the hassle with or without IS.

I certainly agree with this. The only problem is that Canon has no problem selling bodies without IS.

 

[Hammerklavier]

Canon and Nikon being the 2 market leaders probably had come into a collusion not to adopt an IS body and squeeze all the money from us poor consumers... :angry:

 

[lightning]

Every lens at their different focal length will require the IS to be tuned differently. In body IS is not effective at all focal length. This is the primary reason why Canon and Nikon put their IS on the lens. Some of the IS mechanism is so huge that I wonder how it will fit into the camera.

 

[Hammerklavier]

Every lens at their different focal length will require the IS to be tuned differently. In body IS is not effective at all focal length. This is the primary reason why Canon and Nikon put their IS on the lens. Some of the IS mechanism is so huge that I wonder how it will fit into the camera.

i didn't know that. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Tay76101]

I hope the new canon EF S 10-22mm HIS USM. And reduce price

 

[Zion21]

Im sure canon profits much more from IS in each lens people buy than in the body. IS in the body would be absolutely ideal price wise though.

 

[flyer]

I hope the new canon EF S 10-22mm HIS USM. And reduce price

Why would an UWA lens have any need for IS? I hope you were joking, coz I highly doubt this is ever gonna happen.

 

[ahbian]

I hope the new canon EF S 10-22mm HIS USM. And reduce price

Honestly, I doubt anyone would need IS given the focal length of 10-22mm.

 

[StrifeYun]

16-35 IS to shoot 4 sec shutter without tripod ? hehehe

 

[Wai]

No kind of image stablising system can stop motion.

I will rather Canon spend the $$ to make ISO3200 as clean as ISO100

Then I can bump up the ISO to shorten the shutter speed and minimize any motion blur.

In fact, I am against the idea of using IS/VR/AS because you will tend to slow down the shutter speed and your subject will still look blur unless you are shooting something that is dead. (Try asking your subject to freeze for 1sec, you will still get blur picture even if you mount your camera on a tripod)

This reminds me of the panasonic lumix advertisement whereby the photographer manage to get a sharp image of a person dancing with the help of anti-shake :bsmilie::bsmilie:

 

[ahbian]

16-35 IS to shoot 4 sec shutter without tripod ? hehehe

Hahah, given the uncommon situation and the expected premium for the IS, I would rather buy the "old" 16-35 plus a good tripod instead.

 

[flyer]

16-35 IS to shoot 4 sec shutter without tripod ? hehehe

Good idea, but any serious shooter will know that a 4 sec handheld shot without support is not going to give good results even with a state-of-the-art HIS system. But then again, most hobbyist with money to spare will not care anyway