The next major change for Canon and Nikon

RichA wrote:
Dust control was the first one. The second one is going to be
in-camera IS.
Lens-based IS is simply too expensive for the entry level market were
much of the action is. Nikon and Canon will have to offer it to stay
competitive in that level with others that are incorporating it. I'd
look for something from them sooner than later.

My Canon lenses with IS will continue to have IS...regarless of what body
they are used on in the future.
Why would I want to have to buy IS with any and every body I may buy?
-Investment in LENSES is always a good path, rather than hoping the body
will be the cure-all. My excellent IS lenses continue their
service...whether used with my EOS 3, Elan II (once upon a time on an old
Rebel), D30 (detroyed), 10D and and 5D.

Once you've got an IS lens, the it works regardless of body.
It's a good path.

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

Pete D wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message
ps.com...
Dust control was the first one. The second one is going to be
in-camera IS.
Lens-based IS is simply too expensive for the entry level market were
much of the action is. Nikon and Canon will have to offer it to stay
competitive in that level with others that are incorporating it. I'd
look for something from them sooner than later.

Well gosh, who would have thought that? Serves them both right for scamming
their buyers for so long.

In-lens IS also has advantages, e.g., stabilized viewfinder, more lens
specifically effective, etc. In-camera AS also has disadvantages, e.g.,
slower flash sync, etc.

http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr

Tom Ross wrote:
On 17 Sep 2006 08:32:19 -0700, "RichA" wrote:
Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
RichA wrote:
Dust control was the first one. The second one is going to be
in-camera IS.
Lens-based IS is simply too expensive for the entry level market were
much of the action is. Nikon and Canon will have to offer it to stay
competitive in that level with others that are incorporating it. I'd
look for something from them sooner than later.

Hey Rich...

70-300 IS and not EF-S:
$549

28-135 IS and not EF-S:
$419

Hardly out of reach...
...hardly "high-end."

Problem is, the cheap 70-300 is the same kind of lens others are now
selling as second "kit" lenses. Sure they are poor optically, but they
sell for under $200, something you can't do if you have onboard I.S.
Even Canon has the EF 75-300III,
Nikon the 70-300G. If I'm Sony and can do I.S. (and every entry-level
buyer can relate to blurred shots from their film days) I've got an
edge with onboard I.S.

Rich, how can you compare the EF 70-300mm IS to a low-end lens like
the EF 75-300 III? The EF 70-300mm IS is a nice lens that is afforably
priced.

The old 75-300 IS is about the same price as the new 70-300 IS. If they
make a new 70-300 without IS, it would be about the same price as the
current 75-300.

It isn't my choice of lens in that length and price rang, I
would go with the EF 70-200mm f/4L USM, because I'd rather have
quieter focusing and front element that does not rotate than IS and
the extra length.

If I don't want IS, I'd use 200/2.8.

http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr

Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message
ps.com...
Problem is, the cheap 70-300 is the same kind of lens others are now
selling as second "kit" lenses. Sure they are poor optically, but they
sell for under $200,

The optical quality does not need to be poor with the new computer
aided design technology. The new Canon 70-300/4-5.6 IS is much better
than the old IS lens it replaced, but at about the same price. If they
make a new 70-300/4-5.6 without IS but with the same optical quality,
it can be below $200. Nikon followed Canon and made a new 300/5.6 VR
zoom. If Pentax and Sony follow, too, and make good lenses and price
them as low as Canon, then Canon will feel the pressure.

Do you really expect that they
will loose their option to earn extra money by transferring IS into camera?
Man, you ARE naive...doing that will make them loose millions.

But if people buy Pentax or Sony instead of Canon, Canon will lose much
more. Digital technology advances fast. People upgrade digital cameras
every couple years. It is huge money if one can lock people into the
brand and sell them a new digital camera every couple years. So it is
their best interest to attract people into their brand, by an entry
level digital camera with competitive price and performance, and a
comprehensive line of entry level lenses. It is possible now to make
cheap but sharp f/5.6 lenses.

The biggest problem with in-lens IS is that there is no IS offerings
for some lenses, e.g., 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2, etc. The second problem
is cost. IS seems to cost more than $300 extra each lens.

Canon can offer in-camera AS. People can choose to turn off in-camera
AS when using an IS lens.

http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr

"Mark?" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:
RichA wrote:
Dust control was the first one. The second one is going to be
in-camera IS.
Lens-based IS is simply too expensive for the entry level market were
much of the action is. Nikon and Canon will have to offer it to stay
competitive in that level with others that are incorporating it. I'd
look for something from them sooner than later.

My Canon lenses with IS will continue to have IS...regarless of what body
they are used on in the future.
Why would I want to have to buy IS with any and every body I may buy?
-Investment in LENSES is always a good path, rather than hoping the body
will be the cure-all. My excellent IS lenses continue their
service...whether used with my EOS 3, Elan II (once upon a time on an old
Rebel), D30 (detroyed), 10D and and 5D.

Once you've got an IS lens, the it works regardless of body.
It's a good path.

I wonder what will happen with an IS lens on an IS body?

Will they cooperate or will they fight each other?

My guess (I stress "guess") is that Nikon and Canon will
introduce in-body IS on their P&S models. Indeed, Canon
already has.

But I suspect that they will keep their dSLR bodies IS
free and push the idea (which I think is correct) that
IS in the lens is better than IS in the body.

---- Paul J. Gans

Paul J Gans wrote:
"Mark?" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:
RichA wrote:
Dust control was the first one. The second one is going to be
in-camera IS.
Lens-based IS is simply too expensive for the entry level market
were much of the action is. Nikon and Canon will have to offer it
to stay competitive in that level with others that are
incorporating it. I'd look for something from them sooner than
later.

My Canon lenses with IS will continue to have IS...regarless of what
body they are used on in the future.
Why would I want to have to buy IS with any and every body I may buy?
-Investment in LENSES is always a good path, rather than hoping the
body will be the cure-all. My excellent IS lenses continue their
service...whether used with my EOS 3, Elan II (once upon a time on
an old Rebel), D30 (detroyed), 10D and and 5D.

Once you've got an IS lens, the it works regardless of body.
It's a good path.

I wonder what will happen with an IS lens on an IS body?

I really don't think that will become relevant...but if it ever does,
there's a really high-tech thingy on the side of all IS lenses called the
"On/Off" switch.


Will they cooperate or will they fight each other?

Even if it came to that for some reason, there shouldn't be a
conflict...because the lens handles IS completely independant of the image
cast by the lens into the body. If anything, a body-based IS would take
care of remaining movement the lens couldn't zap.

My guess (I stress "guess") is that Nikon and Canon will
introduce in-body IS on their P&S models. Indeed, Canon
already has.

Canon has that, but it's still optically-based (in the lens)...not
sensor-based.

But I suspect that they will keep their dSLR bodies IS
free and push the idea (which I think is correct) that
IS in the lens is better than IS in the body.

I agree with that last part. -That they'll not only avoid it, but also that
in-lens IS just makes more sense.

-Mark²

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

"AaronW" wrote in message
ups.com...
Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message
ps.com...
Problem is, the cheap 70-300 is the same kind of lens others are now
selling as second "kit" lenses. Sure they are poor optically, but they
sell for under $200,

The optical quality does not need to be poor with the new computer
aided design technology. The new Canon 70-300/4-5.6 IS is much better
than the old IS lens it replaced, but at about the same price. If they
make a new 70-300/4-5.6 without IS but with the same optical quality,
it can be below $200. Nikon followed Canon and made a new 300/5.6 VR
zoom. If Pentax and Sony follow, too, and make good lenses and price
them as low as Canon, then Canon will feel the pressure.

Do you really expect that they
will loose their option to earn extra money by transferring IS into
camera?
Man, you ARE naive...doing that will make them loose millions.

But if people buy Pentax or Sony instead of Canon, Canon will lose much
more. Digital technology advances fast. People upgrade digital cameras
every couple years. It is huge money if one can lock people into the
brand and sell them a new digital camera every couple years. So it is
their best interest to attract people into their brand, by an entry
level digital camera with competitive price and performance, and a
comprehensive line of entry level lenses. It is possible now to make
cheap but sharp f/5.6 lenses.

The biggest problem with in-lens IS is that there is no IS offerings
for some lenses, e.g., 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2, etc. The second problem
is cost. IS seems to cost more than $300 extra each lens.

Canon can offer in-camera AS. People can choose to turn off in-camera
AS when using an IS lens.

http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr

the main problem i think is that canon as the name has certain reputation
and they know it. there are people that will buy Canon and Canon only. So
even if others do make similar lenses and prices, canon won't need to make
something in a hurry, since there will be no dangerin that matter. It's all
similar as it is at Microsoft - many people now have Canon body and number
of lenses - because canon did have monopol in low price DSLR's like 350 and
D10/20. Also D1 came out without any decent competitor. So all those won't
change whole their arsenal but rather buy just new body. Other companies
"****ed up" because they came out with low price good models too damn
late....and canon took advantage of this.
I'm not canon fan...i bought it because after days/weeks of studying i found
out that it's just the best compromise for a certain price (noise was a big
issue in my case)...

Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) wrote:
"AaronW" wrote in message
ups.com...
Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message
ps.com...
Problem is, the cheap 70-300 is the same kind of lens others are now
selling as second "kit" lenses. Sure they are poor optically, but they
sell for under $200,

The optical quality does not need to be poor with the new computer
aided design technology. The new Canon 70-300/4-5.6 IS is much better
than the old IS lens it replaced, but at about the same price. If they
make a new 70-300/4-5.6 without IS but with the same optical quality,
it can be below $200. Nikon followed Canon and made a new 300/5.6 VR
zoom. If Pentax and Sony follow, too, and make good lenses and price
them as low as Canon, then Canon will feel the pressure.

Do you really expect that they
will loose their option to earn extra money by transferring IS into
camera?
Man, you ARE naive...doing that will make them loose millions.

But if people buy Pentax or Sony instead of Canon, Canon will lose much
more. Digital technology advances fast. People upgrade digital cameras
every couple years. It is huge money if one can lock people into the
brand and sell them a new digital camera every couple years. So it is
their best interest to attract people into their brand, by an entry
level digital camera with competitive price and performance, and a
comprehensive line of entry level lenses. It is possible now to make
cheap but sharp f/5.6 lenses.

The biggest problem with in-lens IS is that there is no IS offerings
for some lenses, e.g., 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2, etc. The second problem
is cost. IS seems to cost more than $300 extra each lens.

Canon can offer in-camera AS. People can choose to turn off in-camera
AS when using an IS lens.

the main problem i think is that canon as the name has certain reputation
and they know it. there are people that will buy Canon and Canon only. So
even if others do make similar lenses and prices, canon won't need to make
something in a hurry, since there will be no dangerin that matter. It's all
similar as it is at Microsoft

Hopefully Canon does not think that way. Otherwise they will be passed
by competitors soon.

http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr

"AaronW" wrote in message
ups.com...
Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) wrote:

the main problem i think is that canon as the name has certain
reputation
and they know it. there are people that will buy Canon and Canon
only. So
even if others do make similar lenses and prices, canon won't need
to make
something in a hurry, since there will be no dangerin that matter.
It's all
similar as it is at Microsoft

Wrong analogy - Microsoft has managed to get away with bribes,
collusion, and anti-competitive acquisitions in order to push Windows
to all corners of the planet. You can't turn around without bumping
into a Windows computer...heck even Macs are running it now.

People don't buy Windows because it's the best option, or cheap, or
secure. They buy it because there are no other feasible choices. And
as soon as one springs up, Microsoft jumps all over it. It's as bad
the oil companies. They got us by the short and curlies, and they know
it.

:-(

Hopefully Canon does not think that way. Otherwise they will be
passed
by competitors soon.

The new Rebel XTi/400D is proof they don't think like that.
Competition is healthy and strong in the DSLR market.