In article , VC
writes
The release of Sony Alpha with the image stabilization in camera ( although
this is not new) highlighted the fundamental problem with Canon.
Canon have had IS lenses long ago as it would be very difficult to do
in-camera stabilization in film cameras. The digital cameras had to support
older lenses including the ones with IS. If Canon developed a camera with
in-body stabilization it would hurt Canon sales and reputation.
So I guess Canon will continue with its nonstabilized bodies and when Sony
or someone else will achieve the same image sensor quality Canon will find
itself in a very difficult situation.
There is a very small advantage in having IS in the lens but it is not
significant enough to grant double and triple cost of the same quality
lenses.
What do you guys think ?

AIUI, the problem with in-camera IS is that the range of movement
required in the chip is *much* greater than the movement required in an
optical correction element in the middle of the lens.

Thus, other things being equal, an in-lens system will always have the
advantage, and be capable of being smaller, lighter, faster acting, or
more effective (more f-stops effective benefit) or all of the above. The
corollary is of course that you will need one in every lens, instead of
just one in the body, but at least that one in each lens will be
optimised for that lens, not constrained to some generic compromise
value.

So it is probably a choice of cheapness versus maximum effectiveness. I
know which side I come down on, YMMV.

David
--
David Littlewood