Will Canoin/Nikon ever offer in-body IS/VR?

RovingEyePhoto

Some future predicting needed. What are the odds of Canon/Nikon coming out with in-body IS/VR? I figure eventually to go FF, but shoot wide/short-tele zooms, prox 24/28mm out to 70, and both companies have these lenses at a fast 2.8 fixed, but I'm losing 2-3 stops since IS/VR not offered on their wide/short-tele zooms. Sony offers this range of glass with in-body IS, and undoubtedly good stuff, but Canon/Nikon seems safer route for long run. I think I'm right in saying C/N went to in-lens pre-dating digital and now are stuck with it, but reason is unimportant, the fact remains that they don't offer IS/VR wide/short-tele glass. Think I read this has something to do with weight of optical elements, but could be all wet on that. Most of what I shoot is hand-held on-the-fly, so those extra 2-3 stops are very important to me. Comments?

ziggy53

If Canon and Nikon produce more of the IS lenses, especially standard zooms, then I would say there is not much chance of a Nikon or Canon camera with built-in (chip/sensor based) IS in the near future.

Of course, it's just a matter of time before someone comes up with a system with coordinated camera and lens IS. That will be sweet.

Kyle D

ziggy53 wrote:

Of course, it's just a matter of time before someone comes up with a system with coordinated camera and lens IS. That will be sweet.

Stop making me drool!

ziggy53

I should add that Canon does have both a standard zoom and several zoom telephoto lenses with IS now, so you can go basically from 17-300mm-ish with IS (in a crop format of course.)

Wide angle lenses are somewhat less affected by shake, so it will be a while before an IS super-wide zoom is introduced.

Wil Davis

I've always thought IS/VR to be more useful at the longer focal lengths as that is usually where problems of camera shake are apparent; personally, I've never had problems with the shorter focal lengths and wide-angles.

Interesting question…

- Wil

RovingEyePhoto

Wil Davis wrote:

I've always thought IS/VR to be more useful at the longer focal lengths as that is usually where problems of camera shake are apparent; personally, I've never had problems with the shorter focal lengths and wide-angles.

Interesting question…

- Wil

I guess it's a matter of genre. I shoot almost exclusively modeled-street, mods only 3-5' away, 24-50mm equiv for contextual surround, wide open for shallow DOF, usually in back-lit shade or dim early evening or pre-sundown, ISO 100-200 for maximal skin tonal quality, going for count-the-eye-lashes eye sharpness, all on-the-fly hand-held. Shutter speeds often are in the marginal range below 1/100 (Oly E-3 has 2.0 crop factor, so old bromide would put 50mm equiv FL at 1/100 sec), so IS is a definite advantage. Check out my Flickr or SmugMug pages for examples. If in-body IS/VR is a long-future dream, then I'm probably lining up for the Zuiko 14-35 (28-70 equiv) f/2, perfect for the genre. However, would rather apply that USD1,900 to FF, but effectively a roughly 3 stop loss, very significant, so that's why I'm asking about in-body.

RovingEyePhoto

ziggy53 wrote:

I should add that Canon does have both a standard zoom and several zoom telephoto lenses with IS now, so you can go basically from 17-300mm-ish with IS (in a crop format of course.)

Wide angle lenses are somewhat less affected by shake, so it will be a while before an IS super-wide zoom is introduced.

Thanks, Ziggy. Take a look at my response #6. If going for crop, I'll stay with the Oly. My goal is to go FF, will do really well in genre I shoot, just can't give up the stops IS provides. Frustrating to look at the FF 24-70mm f/2.8's sitting there, just with no IS/VR.