Are IS lenses doomed ?

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 ?

VC wrote:
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 ?

Until someone comes up with a sensor-based IS that is as effective as Canon
and Nikon IS/VR at all focal lengths, they have nothing to worry about save
for Sony's less-than-honest marketing tactics.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
...
Until someone comes up with a sensor-based IS that is as effective as
Canon and Nikon IS/VR at all focal lengths, they have nothing to worry
about save for Sony's less-than-honest marketing tactics.

Isn't that the truth?

A lot of people are uninformed enough to believe IS is going to help freeze
sports action, as shown in Sony's marketing campaign.

"VC" wrote in message
...
The release of Sony Alpha with the image stabilization in camera (
although this is not new) highlighted the fundamental problem with
Canon.

There is no problem, that's just marketing hype.

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.

Where do you get that idea? Canon has a good reputation as it stands, so
how would adding another feature to the dozens of current features hurt
their market share?

Was Canons rep hurt when they introduced a sensor cleaner in the XTi?

While we know the sensor cleaners are mostly hype, it doesn't seem to
hurt image quality or camera performance, so how is it detrimental to
sales?

What do you guys think ?

I think you're an easy target for marketing campaigns.

:-)

"VC" wrote in message
...
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 ?

The lenses are doomed, the companies that make them are doomed, photography
as we know it is doomed, we are all doomed.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

"Skip" wrote in message
news
[ . . . ]

The lenses are doomed, the companies that make them are doomed,
photography as we know it is doomed, we are all doomed.

Now that's what I like to see. None of this namby-pamby "glass is half
empty" rubbish.

Neil

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:12:41 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Skip" wrote in message
news
[ . . . ]

The lenses are doomed, the companies that make them are doomed,
photography as we know it is doomed, we are all doomed.

Now that's what I like to see. None of this namby-pamby "glass is half
empty" rubbish.

Neil


I'm on the way to the trash to throw away my 5D and the 24-105....

;-)

--

Scott in Florida

Scott in Florida wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:12:41 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

"Skip" wrote in message
news
[ . . . ]
The lenses are doomed, the companies that make them are doomed,
photography as we know it is doomed, we are all doomed.
Now that's what I like to see. None of this namby-pamby "glass is half
empty" rubbish.

I'm on the way to the trash to throw away my 5D and the 24-105....

;-)

Don't bother. As Skip pointed out, we're all doomed. Doomed, I tell ya,
doomed! So it's no use.

--
john mcwilliams

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 11:21:57 -0800, John McWilliams
wrote:

Scott in Florida wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:12:41 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

"Skip" wrote in message
news
[ . . . ]
The lenses are doomed, the companies that make them are doomed,
photography as we know it is doomed, we are all doomed.
Now that's what I like to see. None of this namby-pamby "glass is half
empty" rubbish.

I'm on the way to the trash to throw away my 5D and the 24-105....

;-)

Don't bother. As Skip pointed out, we're all doomed. Doomed, I tell ya,
doomed! So it's no use.

grin....


--

Scott in Florida

"Scott in Florida" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:12:41 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Skip" wrote in message
news
[ . . . ]

The lenses are doomed, the companies that make them are doomed,
photography as we know it is doomed, we are all doomed.

Now that's what I like to see. None of this namby-pamby "glass is half
empty" rubbish.

Neil


I'm on the way to the trash to throw away my 5D and the 24-105....

;-)

But why? We're all doomed anyway, might as well enjoy our material stuff
right up until the moment the sky falls. ;-)

Neil