# Is there still hope that we see in-body stabilization in the Canon EOS-1D X Mark III?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 26, 2019)

> When Canon did their development announcement for the EOS-1D X Mark III last month, one of the rumoured features that wasn’t mentioned in the press release was the inclusion of in-body stabilization. Most have assumed if it wasn’t mentioned in the development press release, that the camera isn’t equipped with it.
> A new source who claims to have shot with the EOS-1D X Mark III claims that Canon’s new flagship DSLR does indeed have in-body stabilization and that all future Canon ILC cameras will have the feature as well.
> A lot was left out the development announcement about the camera, so I think there’s still a small chance that we see in-body stabilization in the EOS-1D X Mark III, but unfortunately, we cannot confirm this information to certainty.



Continue reading...


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Nov 26, 2019)

That would be a big plus, as IBIS usally achieves some 5 stops of stabilization, while IS in lenses normally is only good for three to four stops.


----------



## Canon1966 (Nov 26, 2019)

IBIS finally, hopefully.


----------



## Warrenl (Nov 26, 2019)

I'm sure there could still be some surprises. No mention of resolution, separate EVF, or stuff we have not even thought of.


----------



## criscokkat (Nov 26, 2019)

Skyscraperfan said:


> That would be a big plus, as IBIS usally achieves some 5 stops of stabilization, while IS in lenses normally is only good for three to four stops.


Most everything canon has released for RF mount has IS built in. I'm wondering if it's somehow different than other manufacturer's implementations to work more closely with the lens?


----------



## albron00 (Nov 26, 2019)

We're going to have an IBIS on Canon DSLRs within next.... 10 years.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 26, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> Most everything canon has released for RF mount has IS built in. I'm wondering if it's somehow different than other manufacturer's implementations to work more closely with the lens?



If we're going to generalize: Only RF the zooms have IS, with the exception of the f/1.8 lens.


----------



## wtlloyd (Nov 26, 2019)

Pretty sure my next body is gonna be a Pro RF. This raises a mild interest for EF again.


----------



## criscokkat (Nov 26, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> If we're going to generalize: Only RF the zooms have IS, with the exception of the f/1.8 lens.


I stand corrected. I guess I've been so lusting on the new zoom lenses I didn't notice.


----------



## Architect1776 (Nov 26, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



I hope to God we do see it and in all future cameras.
Though I would really love it with non-AF and manual optics like a telescope, or old FD and older lenses. Or even with old Nikkor and other lenses and bellows etc.
This would really be sweet if it would work with old optics attached to the body, Hey!! even a pin hole.


----------



## Architect1776 (Nov 26, 2019)

albron00 said:


> We're going to have an IBIS on Canon DSLRs within next.... 10 years.



???


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 26, 2019)

I call bull on this, no rumors on the resolution but clickbait teasers about IBIS?


----------



## vangelismm (Nov 26, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> I stand corrected. I guess I've been so lusting on the new zoom lenses I didn't notice.



The zoom f/2 have IS?


----------



## docsmith (Nov 26, 2019)

Count me as a skeptic. Whatever Canon does decide to do, it is usually top notch, so if this shows up in the 1D line, I will be excited. But they also tend to release new tech on lower end models first and whatever makes to the 1Dx is proven/bulletproof. Example, DPAF came in first on the 70D, I believe. 

If IBIS was coming to the 1D line, I would have thought we would have seen in on the M6II or 90D.


----------



## Roy Hunte (Nov 26, 2019)

docsmith said:


> Count me as a skeptic. Whatever Canon does decide to do, it is usually top notch, so if this shows up in the 1D line, I will be excited. But they also tend to release new tech on lower end models first and whatever makes to the 1Dx is proven/bulletproof. Example, DPAF came in first on the 70D, I believe.
> 
> If IBIS was coming to the 1D line, I would have thought we would have seen in on the M6II or 90D.


Maybe another lower end camera is coming out.


----------



## Canon1966 (Nov 26, 2019)

albron00 said:


> We're going to have an IBIS on Canon DSLRs within next.... 10 years.





Warrenl said:


> I'm sure there could still be some surprises. No mention of resolution, separate EVF, or stuff we have not even thought of.


EVF would be awesome, but I doubt it. Hard enough to get IBIS...


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 26, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> I call bull on this, no rumors on the resolution but clickbait teasers about IBIS?





privatebydesign said:


> I call bull on this, no rumors on the resolution but clickbait teasers about IBIS?



It makes me wonder if those two things are related, for instance the IBIS version would get hotter, so they can't do [email protected], but they can do [email protected] within the thermal limits they set themselves.


----------



## Daner (Nov 26, 2019)

Skyscraperfan said:


> That would be a big plus, as IBIS usally achieves some 5 stops of stabilization, while IS in lenses normally is only good for three to four stops.



I seem to remember that all RF lenses with IS have 5 stops of stabilization.


----------



## Chaitanya (Nov 26, 2019)

IBIS is quite mature and competing platforms already are showing full benifits of having one especially when lenses with IS work in combination of IBIS.


----------



## MartinF. (Nov 26, 2019)

docsmith said:


> Count me as a skeptic. Whatever Canon does decide to do, it is usually top notch, so if this shows up in the 1D line, I will be excited. But they also tend to release new tech on lower end models first and whatever makes to the 1Dx is proven/bulletproof. Example, DPAF came in first on the 70D, I believe.
> 
> If IBIS was coming to the 1D line, I would have thought we would have seen in on the M6II or 90D.


Quite right: Canon often put in new features in lower end models: Sensor Cleaning in 400D (Kiss/Rebel) before higher end models


----------



## sanj (Nov 26, 2019)

Pre order.


----------



## sanj (Nov 26, 2019)

wtlloyd said:


> Pretty sure my next body is gonna be a Pro RF. This raises a mild interest for EF again.


How long are you willing to wait?


----------



## mpb001 (Nov 26, 2019)

Canon knows that it will need to have IBIS in most of its ILC to stay competitive with the orher manufacturers. IBIS will most likely be in the high MP R in 2020 and all subsequent models like an RII. My guess is IBID will be left out of an RP II to keep costs down. I hope not, but I thing it might not have it.


----------



## KT (Nov 26, 2019)

Is there anything inherently different or technically insurmountable about an IBIS on DSLR versus IBIS on a mirrorless camera? It seems that everyone who builds a mirrorless camera have figured out how to get it up and running a decade ago, while the DSLR giants are still trying to figure it out. Can anyone who understand that stuff shed some light as to why DSLR IBIS has lagged that far behind?


----------



## yungfat (Nov 26, 2019)

I do not have body with IBIS, and having limited knowledge for IBIS.
But I’m wondering how much benefits of IBIS to sports shooter, while catching the moment normally need higher shutter speed.


----------



## ethanz (Nov 26, 2019)

KT said:


> Is there anything inherently different or technically insurmountable about an IBIS on DSLR versus IBIS on a mirrorless camera? It seems that everyone who builds a mirrorless camera have figured out how to get it up and running a decade ago, while the DSLR giants are still trying to figure it out. Can anyone who understand that stuff shed some light as to why DSLR IBIS has lagged that far behind?



I think it is because there is generally less room in a DSLR due to the mirror.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 26, 2019)

docsmith said:


> Count me as a skeptic. Whatever Canon does decide to do, it is usually top notch, so if this shows up in the 1D line, I will be excited. But they also tend to release new tech on lower end models first and whatever makes to the 1Dx is proven/bulletproof. Example, DPAF came in first on the 70D, I believe.
> 
> If IBIS was coming to the 1D line, I would have thought we would have seen in on the M6II or 90D.



Adding to this: 

If Canon were putting IBIS in the 1DxIII they would have made a big deal about it in their development announcement.

Not even sure why IBIS would be a priority for the 1DxIII line -- it's not a benefit for sports or other action.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 26, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> I call bull on this, no rumors on the resolution but clickbait teasers about IBIS?


I guess we need something to generate traffic and keep the troops distracted while we wait for real rumors.


----------



## RiceCanon (Nov 26, 2019)

With the high price tag this camera will undoubtedly have it would reflect very poorly on Canon not to have all the latest and greatest technology included. But this is Canon so...


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 26, 2019)

RiceCanon said:


> With the high price tag this camera will undoubtedly have it would reflect very poorly on Canon not to have all the latest and greatest technology included. But this is Canon so...


As has already been pointed out that is not how Canon normally work, they put new tech in lower end models to evaluate over high numbers the acceptance rate, things like eye controlled AF never made it to the 1 series after being introduced in the EOS3.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 26, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> As has already been pointed out that is not how Canon normally work, they put new tech in lower end models to evaluate over high numbers the acceptance rate, things like eye controlled AF never made it to the 1 series after being introduced in the EOS3.


Plus, think of the timelines.....

Why would you only introduce new features in the body with the longest refresh cycles? Doesn't it make more sense to introduce something on the next body to get released? For example, look at flicker detection. It came out on the 7D2. Every body after that has the feature. Touch screen interface came out in low end bodies. If we were waitiong for it to come out in a 1 series body, then we would still be waiting. Then we have articulated screens, which most camera owners, with the notable exception of most 1 series users and many 5 series users, regard as a useful tool. Since it won't be on a 1 camera, should nobody get it?


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 26, 2019)

vangelismm said:


> The zoom f/2 have IS?


No


----------



## jvillain (Nov 26, 2019)

> all future Canon ILC cameras will have the feature as well.



I don't believe that for a second, unless Canon plans a cull of their low end cameras. 1DX might get it but Canon will likley up the price $2000 to give it to you.


----------



## ykn123 (Nov 26, 2019)

i would expect me to shoot sports in the range if 1/1600s or less with a camera like that - wtf i would need IBIS for ?


----------



## slclick (Nov 26, 2019)

Roy Hunte said:


> Maybe another lower end camera is coming out.


(M5 Mk ll)


----------



## bgoyette (Nov 26, 2019)

I'm wondering if it would be more of a video focused Electronic IBIS similar to what it being used on the new C500 Mark II. This could be added to "any" ILC without significant hardware issues...as floating sensor IBIS has normally been limited to mirrorless systems. There are people arguing that this electronic IBIS can actually be more accurate, especially when combined with lens IS, as the gyro information being used is "actual" rather than predictive. Don't know if that's completely true, (electronic stabilization benefits from higher shutter speeds, which negates its usefulness in still shooting), but certainly, the computational side is the direction that most manufacturers are starting to look at.


----------



## sanj (Nov 26, 2019)

yungfat said:


> I do not have body with IBIS, and having limited knowledge for IBIS.
> But I’m wondering how much benefits of IBIS to sports shooter, while catching the moment normally need higher shutter speed.


None. Zilch. But I shoot more than just fast moving subjects. IBIS is really welcome for me


----------



## FramerMCB (Nov 26, 2019)

I'm not sure of the engineering requirements but Pentax put IBIS into the most robust FF camera on the planet in the K1 and K1 Mk II. Those things are tanks. However, their video capability is minimal in the extreme - so I'm sure there are some serious technical issues with doing IBIS right in a sturdy platform while also offering the 4K video w/frame-rate options: heating perhaps being the biggest thing to overcome or at least one of the critical things to overcome.


----------



## FramerMCB (Nov 26, 2019)

bgoyette said:


> I'm wondering if it would be more of a video focused Electronic IBIS similar to what it being used on the new C500 Mark II. This could be added to "any" ILC without significant hardware issues...as floating sensor IBIS has normally been limited to mirrorless systems. There are people arguing that this electronic IBIS can actually be more accurate, especially when combined with lens IS, as the gyro information being used is "actual" rather than predictive. Don't know if that's completely true, (electronic stabilization benefits from higher shutter speeds, which negates its usefulness in still shooting), but certainly, the computational side is the direction that most manufacturers are starting to look at.


They also have the movie IBIS in the 6D Mk II. Can't remember if the 5D Mk IV has that feature...


----------



## FramerMCB (Nov 26, 2019)

KT said:


> Is there anything inherently different or technically insurmountable about an IBIS on DSLR versus IBIS on a mirrorless camera? It seems that everyone who builds a mirrorless camera have figured out how to get it up and running a decade ago, while the DSLR giants are still trying to figure it out. Can anyone who understand that stuff shed some light as to why DSLR IBIS has lagged that far behind?


The DSLR giants might be struggling with implementing in DSLRs but Pentax (Ricoh) has it figured out; I don't know if they collaborated with Sony, Panasonic, or Olympus though.


----------



## AJ (Nov 26, 2019)

So stabilization will be in the captured image (and live-view) but not in the optical viewfinder? That will be interesting.


----------



## flip314 (Nov 26, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> ...all future Canon ILC cameras will have the feature as well...



This makes be skeptical, because I don't see them pushing this down to Rebels any time soon.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 26, 2019)

I'll stick my neck out to go on record as saying, without reservation, this is doubtful, but within the realm of possibility.


----------



## BeenThere (Nov 26, 2019)

Canon has been so wedded to the benefit of having IS in the lens rather than the body that it may feel as though they are eating crow to relent. However being the last man standing is not enviable for marketing when comparing to the competition, so ultimately crow will be on the menu. Customers are certainly eager whether or not there is any significant benefit.


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Nov 26, 2019)

bgoyette said:


> I'm wondering if it would be more of a video focused Electronic IBIS similar to what it being used on the new C500 Mark II. This could be added to "any" ILC without significant hardware issues...as floating sensor IBIS has normally been limited to mirrorless systems. There are people arguing that this electronic IBIS can actually be more accurate, especially when combined with lens IS, as the gyro information being used is "actual" rather than predictive. Don't know if that's completely true, (electronic stabilization benefits from higher shutter speeds, which negates its usefulness in still shooting), but certainly, the computational side is the direction that most manufacturers are starting to look at.



EIS has been used for a while. It's decent in the EOS R, but you're limited to 1080 and a crop. Usually EIS is stacked on top of IBIS and OIS, an example would be the GH5. With enough practice, you can pull off a dolly shot hand held on the GH5.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Nov 26, 2019)

I don't think the 1DX3 bodies I saw at PPE were any thicker than current 1DX2 so I doesn't seem likely they could have had an IBIS mechanism built into them. I guess it's possible that they weren't the final chasis and there are other versions of the body in development. Doesn't seem likely.

The risk/value proposition looks like a loser to me. Not much gain and the potential for a lot of problems. The last 1DX is not the place to be trying out experimental hardware. Save it for the high MP mirror-less. Early adopters expect to get burned sometimes. 1DX purchasers do not.

Canon needs to get moving on IBIS though. They've given their competitora a 15 year head start and there are important things that can be accomplished with a positionable sensor (multi-sampling) that can't be done with in-lens IS. Image stabilization is only the beginning.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Nov 26, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Adding to this:
> 
> If Canon were putting IBIS in the 1DxIII they would have made a big deal about it in their development announcement.
> 
> Not even sure why IBIS would be a priority for the 1DxIII line -- it's not a benefit for sports or other action.


 It does have the best video specs of any DSLR though. They might consider IBIS based on that alone. As you said it has no tangible benefits for sports and wildlife(except for a few specific cases-bird portraits etc)


----------



## Cyborx (Nov 26, 2019)

By the time this camera hits the market, the specs it has will be oldscool.
Sony will be far far ahead of the game with another mirrorless camera that makes Canon shiver.

And yes, I am a Canon user. Seeing colleagues making the switch to camera's that are as sharp as a knife.
Making me look like an amateur with not even half the sharpness these small Sony's can achieve.

And please, stop framing me as an idiot. The truth hurts, and Canon needs to step up.
Increase RND, decrease prices.


----------



## swblackwood (Nov 26, 2019)

Ah, but what kind of IBIS will it have. The good IBIS of Panasonic, the OK IBIS of Nikon or the terrible IBIS of Sony.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Nov 26, 2019)

Cyborx said:


> By the time this camera hits the market, the specs it has will be oldscool.
> Sony will be far far ahead of the game with another mirrorless camera that makes Canon shiver.
> 
> And yes, I am a Canon user. Seeing colleagues making the switch to camera's that are as sharp as a knife.
> ...


Sony just released the a92. It is way behind the 1dx3 in most areas. So no. Sony will not release something that is going to outclass the 1dx3 any time soon


----------



## Cyborx (Nov 26, 2019)

albron00 said:


> We're going to have an IBIS on Canon DSLRs within next.... 10 years.



Exactly.. I'm affraid so..
Sony only has to launch a silent mirrorless pro body just before Canon brings the MK III to market and Canon (camera dept.) will be out of business.


----------



## venusFivePhotoStudio (Nov 26, 2019)

I've heard Canon will have IBIS, IS and EIS combined. 
IBIS - In Body Image Stabilization
IS - Image stabilization (in the lens)
EIS - Electronic Image Stebilization (done by software)


----------



## navastronia (Nov 26, 2019)

venusFivePhotoStudio said:


> I've heard Canon will have IBIS, IS and EIS combined.
> IBIS - In Body Image Stabilization
> IS - Image stabilization (in the lens)
> EIS - Electronic Image Stebilization (done by software)



Speaking from my experience with the EOS RP, EIS is horrible.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 26, 2019)

Cyborx said:


> Exactly.. I'm affraid so..
> Sony only has to launch a silent mirrorless pro body just before Canon brings the MK III to market and Canon (camera dept.) will be out of business.





Cyborx said:


> By the time this camera hits the market, the specs it has will be oldscool.
> Sony will be far far ahead of the game with another mirrorless camera that makes Canon shiver.
> 
> And yes, I am a Canon user. Seeing colleagues making the switch to camera's that are as sharp as a knife.
> ...



Pfttttt. I tried hard not to label you, but...


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 26, 2019)

docsmith said:


> Count me as a skeptic. Whatever Canon does decide to do, it is usually top notch, so if this shows up in the 1D line, I will be excited. But they also tend to release new tech on lower end models first and whatever makes to the 1Dx is proven/bulletproof. Example, DPAF came in first on the 70D, I believe.
> 
> If IBIS was coming to the 1D line, I would have thought we would have seen in on the M6II or 90D.



On the other hand, iTR was introduced in early 2012 with the 1D X. iTR required the new RGB+IR light meter that the 1D X also introduced to the Canon line.

The next camera to get iTR and an RGB+IR meter was the 7D Mark II in late 2014.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 26, 2019)

Aussie shooter said:


> It does have the best video specs of any DSLR though. They might consider IBIS based on that alone. As you said it has no tangible benefits for sports and wildlife(except for a few specific cases-bird portraits etc)


Yes, I did think about video. I still doubt this rumor, but if they did put it into the 1Dx III, I think it would be primarily to make it a more attractive camera for video shooters. And, since the few remaining professional photojournalists out there are increasingly expected to bring back both stills and video, features that would make it easier for still shooters to switch to video when needed might be a priority for the 1 series.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 26, 2019)

Daner said:


> I seem to remember that all RF lenses with IS have 5 stops of stabilization.



But not all EF lenses that can be used on the RF bodies have 5 stop IS. Until Canon fills out the RF lens system, there will be a lot of folks using EF lenses on EF bodies.

The other thing one must consider is that IBIS is most effective at wider angles of view/shorter focal lengths. The same amount of camera movement creates more blur with a narrower angle of view. The same number of IBIS "stops" requires a larger movement of the sensor for longer lenses than for shorter lenses. Those "5 stop" numbers on zoom lenses used with IBIS systems are usually when the lens is zoomed all of the way out. If the focal length is doubled, then the effectiveness for an IBIS system drops to 2.5 stops.


----------



## tron (Nov 26, 2019)

Anyone says whatever they like so I do not see a reason why I shouldn't do the same.

NO IBIS for 1DxIII. There I said it! You know a cousin's cousin friend of brother in law etc.... 
Or common sense! It is a pro camera and If something works ...

And not really an issue. It will be an awesome camera anyway!

I just wish for more than 24Mpixels and the usual incremental improvements in low and high ISO (the 1DxII had major improvements in shadows to tell the truth). 

Since Canon does not give us a small 1DxII let's have a big 5DIV


----------



## Aussie shooter (Nov 26, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Yes, I did think about video. I still doubt this rumor, but if they did put it into the 1Dx III, I think it would be primarily to make it a more attractive camera for video shooters. And, since the few remaining professional photojournalists out there are increasingly expected to bring back both stills and video, features that would make it easier for still shooters to switch to video when needed might be a priority for the 1 series.


I have a healthy dose of scepticism about this as well. Introducing an unproven(for canon in terms of durability) feature into a camera that cannot afford failures would surprise me. perhaps though. It is not an impossibility


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 26, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Plus, think of the timelines.....
> 
> Why would you only introduce new features in the body with the longest refresh cycles? Doesn't it make more sense to introduce something on the next body to get released? For example, look at flicker detection. It came out on the 7D2. Every body after that has the feature. Touch screen interface came out in low end bodies. If we were waitiong for it to come out in a 1 series body, then we would still be waiting. Then we have articulated screens, which most camera owners, with the notable exception of most 1 series users and many 5 series users, regard as a useful tool. Since it won't be on a 1 camera, should nobody get it?



Not all of the Rebel bodies have flicker reduction. The xx0D bodies do, but the xx00D bodies do not.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 26, 2019)

slclick said:


> (M5 Mk ll)



(Dream on)


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 26, 2019)

swblackwood said:


> Ah, but what kind of IBIS will it have. The good IBIS of Panasonic, the OK IBIS of Nikon or the terrible IBIS of Sony.



Does it matter? Just as long as the spec sheet has "IBIS" on it?


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 26, 2019)

Cyborx said:


> By the time this camera hits the market, the specs it has will be oldscool.
> Sony will be far far ahead of the game with another mirrorless camera that makes Canon shiver.
> 
> And yes, I am a Canon user. Seeing colleagues making the switch to camera's that are as sharp as a knife.
> ...


Nobody needs to frame you as anything.

If you believe you are perceived as an amateur because of the brand you use, perhaps you might want to have an objective, cool-headed friend sit down and go over your portfolio with you, or perhaps the way you interact with clients. Or the way you dress and speak generally. I'm certain the brand of camera has nothing to do with how others perceive you.


----------



## GoldWing (Nov 26, 2019)

If the IQ is not substantially better... why buy it? 

Focus, IS, Resolution, DR, White Balance Rendition... Auto MA would be sweet... However if the IQ in the end is not *much* better everything else is moot. Just marketing hype! I see cheap cameras with 30+ MP's shooting at 30fps in RAW. We are waiting.....


----------



## slclick (Nov 27, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> (Dream on)


Which is not to different than the main topic of this thread.


----------



## slclick (Nov 27, 2019)

GoldWing said:


> If the IQ is not substantially better... why buy it?
> 
> Focus, IS, Resolution, DR, White Balance Rendition... Auto MA would be sweet... However if the IQ in the end is not *much* better everything else is moot. Just marketing hype! I see cheap cameras with 30+ MP's shooting at 30fps in RAW. We are waiting.....


Please provide links to these 'cheap cameras' You just throwing it out there means nothing if they are garbage in other aspects besides those two specs.


----------



## KT (Nov 27, 2019)

ethanz said:


> I think it is because there is generally less room in a DSLR due to the mirror.


Somehow I doubt this is the case for two reasons: 1) Pretty much all the IBIS hardware sits behind the sensor while the mirror box is in front of it, 2) DSLR are far more bulky than mirrorless bodies (compare the Canon 1DX mark II or Nikon D5 versus the Olympus E-M1 mark II and try to guess which one has the 5-stop IBIS built-in) so size alone shouldn't be the barrier to adding the extra few mm necessary to accommodate such tech. I think there's more to it than just size.


----------



## Trey T (Nov 27, 2019)

If they retain 100view and OVF, then it won’t have IBIS.


----------



## GoldWing (Nov 27, 2019)

So IBS will add an additional stop? Professional sports photogs are laughing. I'm shooting at 1/2500 and above and it's to my advantage to turn IS off at times. People can crow about IN Camera Stabilization but 1 to 2 stops it's not a reason to buy a new body. Now give me a 30MP frame at 15fps in RAW to enhance post-production. *All we want is an OVF, at 15fps RAW and 30MP frames with our big whites we spend $6K to $13K for and more cross-points across our OVF. *Give me the solid Canon tools we're used to. I'm a photographer, *not *a videographer. If I want to take 60fps or 120fps 4K video I'll buy a $1,000 Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera. I'm a professional sports photographer not _Steven Frig'n Spielberg_. Has anyone at Canon walked down the sidelines in the press pit at NFL, NBA, MLB or NHL? No one has come to us! No one asked us at America's Cup as we're getting drenched in water following a moving object in a moving object. No one came to us. We are professional sports photographers! Please don't fill my body with TOYS that take away from my photographs. Devote the MKIII to photographers... not enthusiasts. You took away our stock of CFast for Express cards. OK!!! Why give me 20 or 24MP's when that technology is in you *$600 consumer cameras?* If Canon can't deliver a 15fps, 30MP camera with enhanced IQ, DR, Resolution, Focus and Auto MA for our Big Whites I've got to wonder why we, or our agencies are to invest. *Every pro sport I shoot 15fps is more than enough. * I'm not producing a frig'n movie. When we broadcast it's a $200K Canon lens!!! Why screw with our cameras, we are photographers. Please *don't take away from my photographs by devoting so much of the camera to videography. Take that space and give us a better camera for photography. *We know what we shoot. The games, the sport, the athletes, the rules.... And 15fps is plenty. We want the DR and focus so at 15fps RAW we get the money shots. If we had 30MP's we can express more latitude *in production for post. *Can an executive sitting in an office in a chair understand that??? *We are sports photographers. *


----------



## photo212 (Nov 27, 2019)

I really do hope the 1D X Mk III has everything y'all ever wish. Just means the price on the Mk II will drop to be affordable for me to upgrade.


----------



## masterpix (Nov 27, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



I am not sure about it, but from the looks of the camera, the body seems to gain some "fat". That may allow some additional componenets inside the body, which may incluse IBIS, for it does need the "space".


----------



## Punio (Nov 27, 2019)

Would make sense to include IBIS as they are now targeting video users.


----------



## Baron_Karza (Nov 27, 2019)

GoldWing said:


> So IBS will add an additional stop? Professional sports photogs are laughing. I'm shooting at 1/2500 and above and it's to my advantage to turn IS off at times. People can crow about IN Camera Stabilization but 1 to 2 stops it's not a reason to buy a new body. Now give me a 30MP frame at 15fps in RAW to enhance post-production. *All we want is an OVF, at 15fps RAW and 30MP frames with our big whites we spend $6K to $13K for and more cross-points across our OVF. *Give me the solid Canon tools we're used to. I'm a photographer, *not *a videographer. If I want to take 60fps or 120fps 4K video I'll buy a $1,000 Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera. I'm a professional sports photographer not _Steven Frig'n Spielberg_. Has anyone at Canon walked down the sidelines in the press pit at NFL, NBA, MLB or NHL? No one has come to us! No one asked us at America's Cup as we're getting drenched in water following a moving object in a moving object. No one came to us. We are professional sports photographers! Please don't fill my body with TOYS that take away from my photographs. Devote the MKIII to photographers... not enthusiasts. You took away our stock of CFast for Express cards. OK!!! Why give me 20 or 24MP's when that technology is in you *$600 consumer cameras?* If Canon can't deliver a 15fps, 30MP camera with enhanced IQ, DR, Resolution, Focus and Auto MA for our Big Whites I've got to wonder why we, or our agencies are to invest. *Every pro sport I shoot 15fps is more than enough. * I'm not producing a frig'n movie. When we broadcast it's a $200K Canon lens!!! Why screw with our cameras, we are photographers. Please *don't take away from my photographs by devoting so much of the camera to videography. Take that space and give us a better camera for photography. *We know what we shoot. The games, the sport, the athletes, the rules.... And 15fps is plenty. We want the DR and focus so at 15fps RAW we get the money shots. If we had 30MP's we can express more latitude *in production for post. *Can an executive sitting in an office in a chair understand that??? *We are sports photographers. *


"and it's to my advantage to turn IS off at times."... so you do need IS at other times...


----------



## PerKr (Nov 27, 2019)

KT said:


> Is there anything inherently different or technically insurmountable about an IBIS on DSLR versus IBIS on a mirrorless camera? It seems that everyone who builds a mirrorless camera have figured out how to get it up and running a decade ago, while the DSLR giants are still trying to figure it out. Can anyone who understand that stuff shed some light as to why DSLR IBIS has lagged that far behind?



It's because those who had IBIS went mirrorless while Canon and Nikon stuck to their in-lens IS which at the time was superior. IBIS appeared on Minolta cameras first, starting with the advanced compact A1 camera, then later in the Dynax 7D DSLR before selling the operation to Sony who went on to create a number of DSLRs using IBIS (which also evolved during this time of course). And then eventually Sony went mirrorless. As for the third DSLR manufacturer, Pentax, well, who knows, they just seem to have fallen behind in general?

So it's not that DSLR couldn't have as good IBIS as a mirrorless camera, it's just that those who decided to implement IBIS went mirrorless either before or after implementing IBIS in their lineup. There's nothing about a DSLR that stops it from having just as good IBIS as a mirrorless. Definitely not the mirror box (there's a shutter in-between the mirror-box and the sensor and that shutter remains there in mirrorless cameras) and the IBIS actuation is governed by accelerometers so don't depend on whether there is incoming light.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Nov 27, 2019)

yungfat said:


> I do not have body with IBIS, and having limited knowledge for IBIS.
> But I’m wondering how much benefits of IBIS to sports shooter, while catching the moment normally need higher shutter speed.


 It's a myth sports/action shooters won't benefit from IBIS. It's the same benefit as from any IS. As an example, say you have an EF 70-200 IS. Will you prefer to shoot with IS enabled or disabled? Obviously you don't compensate the motion blur, but hand/camera shake blur adds to the overall blur and it can be critical. Personally I can't shoot action say at 200mm and 1/500s and without IS.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Nov 27, 2019)

Some body on here claimed journos would be able to put media cards in the camera before end of November so we'd know the resolution. What happened, was it all BS? 

IBIS would be great and a big selling point IMO.


----------



## TMHKR (Nov 27, 2019)

Trey T said:


> If they retain 100view and OVF, then it won’t have IBIS.


Nonsense. IBIS is separate from the entire mirror-prism-OVF system.


----------



## ToonD (Nov 27, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> It's a myth sports/action shooters won't benefit from IBIS. It's the same benefit as from any IS. As an example, say you have an EF 70-200 IS. Will you prefer to shoot with IS enabled or disabled? Obviously you don't compensate the motion blur, but hand/camera shake blur adds to the overall blur and it can be critical. Personally I can't shoot action say at 200mm and 1/500s and without IS.



With moderate to fast action you will have motion blur. With or without IS.


----------



## bellorusso (Nov 27, 2019)

Whatever Canon adds these days, Canon still is always behind the leaders of innovation. There was a time when Canon was ahead. I miss those days.


----------



## vscd (Nov 27, 2019)

there may be some point in your comment, but the DPAF is still ways ahead of the competition and the high ISO performance is also nothing bad. they should maybe only prioritize better... the Focus-correction with DualPixel was more or less useless, but IBIS would help a lot in manual lenses.

I want a new 5D Mark V... and I hope that most things will be brought up to date.


----------



## Kit. (Nov 27, 2019)

bellorusso said:


> Whatever Canon adds these days, Canon still is always behind the leaders of innovation. There was a time when Canon was ahead. I miss those days.


I don't (if there ever were such times, which I doubt). When I buy something as expensive as good camera gear, I expect to use it for a long time.


----------



## criscokkat (Nov 27, 2019)

Kit. said:


> I don't (if there ever were such times, which I doubt). When I buy something as expensive as good camera gear, I expect to use it for a long time.


Their time to market for new innovations has been slow, but when they get there they've dominated over the last 30 years. The difference is the amount of internet camera-specific websites/forums/youtube/etc covering it. As a society we have been conditioned with technology with the philosophy of "Day Before Release = Vaporware", "Day of Release = State of the Art", "Day After Release = Obsolete".

Except now it's gotten so bad that if all the manufacturers don't offer the exact same specs with a different badge, it's labeled obsolete too. I've seen those same criticisms on Sony's site for not adding that functionality to their lenses, or nikon for having that functionality only if you disable focusing with the Z lenses.


----------



## reef58 (Nov 27, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> Their time to market for new innovations has been slow, but when they get there they've dominated over the last 30 years. The difference is the amount of internet camera-specific websites/forums/youtube/etc covering it. As a society we have been conditioned with technology with the philosophy of "Day Before Release = Vaporware", "Day of Release = State of the Art", "Day After Release = Obsolete".
> 
> Except now it's gotten so bad that if all the manufacturers don't offer the exact same specs with a different badge, it's labeled obsolete too. I've seen those same criticisms on Sony's site for not adding that functionality to their lenses, or nikon for having that functionality only if you disable focusing with the Z lenses.



To some degree you are correct. That being said the 1d line is geared towards working professionals. They want reliable gear that works. In that group I am sure there are spec chasers, but I suspect they are the minority. The websites / forums / youtube pundits are not the demographic 1d line is aimed at anyway, and even if it were 99.9% are not going to buy a 1d.


----------



## Quackator (Nov 27, 2019)

Funny, nobody mentions the cooling problems and the reduced 
MTBF that IBIS brings along, or the possible tilted image plane,
if the lock position isn't absolutely precise.

Yeah, right, Sony is first. In overheating.

I'd prefer cameras without IBIS. 

Sample size of one, of course.


----------



## Dockland (Nov 27, 2019)

Wasn't Canon EOS-1D X Mark III released some week ago?


----------



## Aussie shooter (Nov 27, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> It's a myth sports/action shooters won't benefit from IBIS. It's the same benefit as from any IS. As an example, say you have an EF 70-200 IS. Will you prefer to shoot with IS enabled or disabled? Obviously you don't compensate the motion blur, but hand/camera shake blur adds to the overall blur and it can be critical. Personally I can't shoot action say at 200mm and 1/500s and without IS.


Well, you can't really shoot action at 1/500 sec period. With or without IBIS. Not unless you want your subject to be blurred. But when the action does slow down it would certainly help to be able to drop your shutter speed and consequently lower your ISO along with it and that is where IBIS would help.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 27, 2019)

KT said:


> Somehow I doubt this is the case for two reasons: 1) Pretty much all the IBIS hardware sits behind the sensor while the mirror box is in front of it, 2) DSLR are far more bulky than mirrorless bodies (compare the Canon 1DX mark II or Nikon D5 versus the Olympus E-M1 mark II and try to guess which one has the 5-stop IBIS built-in) so size alone shouldn't be the barrier to adding the extra few mm necessary to accommodate such tech. I think there's more to it than just size.



The difference is that the sensors in DSLRs are much closer to the back of the camera body, in order to allow room for the mirror box and registration distance fo 40+mm in front of the sensor, while the sensors in mirrorless bodies tend to be further forward with reference to the back of the camera because the registration distance is much shorter.

There's absolutely no room in a DSLR to move the sensor forward to allow more room behind the sensor for IBIS without increasing the total thickness of the camera body, unless one is willing to use a shorter registration distance that still would need to avoid mirror clearance issues.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 27, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> It's a myth sports/action shooters won't benefit from IBIS. It's the same benefit as from any IS. As an example, say you have an EF 70-200 IS. Will you prefer to shoot with IS enabled or disabled? Obviously you don't compensate the motion blur, but hand/camera shake blur adds to the overall blur and it can be critical. Personally I can't shoot action say at 200mm and 1/500s and without IS.



Why are you trying to capture action at 1/500? Even if the camera is rock solid, your subjects will be blurry when moving at full speed.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 27, 2019)

Dockland said:


> Wasn't Canon EOS-1D X Mark III released some week ago?



No. A "development announcement" was released. It's the first "official" acknowledgment that Canon even is working on a 1D X Mark III.


----------



## Joules (Nov 27, 2019)

I'm once again surprised at how afraid of change come people appear to be. How can you be so critical of IBIS when in lens Is is just fine? Moving parts are moving parts, I don't see how one would be a concern for reliability, life time, tilted image plain and so in, an the other is not. Especially since IBIS could allow some features that IS doesn't, like correcting for rotation or actively help with subject tracking. 

From my point of view, with a decent IBIS implementation, it should alway be possible to lock the sensor down. If you don't like it, don't use it. But don't make claims about how much worse it is, until you've seen the implementation. If Canon was willing to put IBIS in their cameras just to have it on the spec sheet, we would have seen it already. When they'll do it, they'll do it properly or not at all.


----------



## makera (Nov 27, 2019)

GoldWing said:


> So IBS will add an additional stop? Professional sports photogs are laughing. I'm shooting at 1/2500 and above and it's to my advantage to turn IS off at times. People can crow about IN Camera Stabilization but 1 to 2 stops it's not a reason to buy a new body. Now give me a 30MP frame at 15fps in RAW to enhance post-production. *All we want is an OVF, at 15fps RAW and 30MP frames with our big whites we spend $6K to $13K for and more cross-points across our OVF. *Give me the solid Canon tools we're used to. I'm a photographer, *not *a videographer. If I want to take 60fps or 120fps 4K video I'll buy a $1,000 Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera. I'm a professional sports photographer not _Steven Frig'n Spielberg_. Has anyone at Canon walked down the sidelines in the press pit at NFL, NBA, MLB or NHL? No one has come to us! No one asked us at America's Cup as we're getting drenched in water following a moving object in a moving object. No one came to us. We are professional sports photographers! Please don't fill my body with TOYS that take away from my photographs. Devote the MKIII to photographers... not enthusiasts. You took away our stock of CFast for Express cards. OK!!! Why give me 20 or 24MP's when that technology is in you *$600 consumer cameras?* If Canon can't deliver a 15fps, 30MP camera with enhanced IQ, DR, Resolution, Focus and Auto MA for our Big Whites I've got to wonder why we, or our agencies are to invest. *Every pro sport I shoot 15fps is more than enough. * I'm not producing a frig'n movie. When we broadcast it's a $200K Canon lens!!! Why screw with our cameras, we are photographers. Please *don't take away from my photographs by devoting so much of the camera to videography. Take that space and give us a better camera for photography. *We know what we shoot. The games, the sport, the athletes, the rules.... And 15fps is plenty. We want the DR and focus so at 15fps RAW we get the money shots. If we had 30MP's we can express more latitude *in production for post. *Can an executive sitting in an office in a chair understand that??? *We are sports photographers. *


I want to contradict. I hope Canon does not listen to you. I hope for a good IBIS.
The development is already completed anyway. You have to talk to Canon earlier. 
I talked to Canon staff 2 years ago. The majority of 1DX customers want both, photo and video. Photojournalists and wedding photographers need both and do not always want to travel with multiple cameras.
Or I need the 1DX III as a B-video camera.
The 1DX III camera is not just for sports photographers. Sports photographers are in the minority. 
If Canon would follow your wishes, the camera can not achieve the sales figures and would cost at least twice. And Sony would be happy. We are picture-video journalists.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 27, 2019)

reef58 said:


> To some degree you are correct. That being said the 1d line is geared towards working professionals. They want reliable gear that works. In that group I am sure there are spec chasers, but I suspect they are the minority. The websites / forums / youtube pundits are not the demographic 1d line is aimed at anyway, and even if it were 99.9% are not going to buy a 1d.


I'm not so sure I can agree that the 1D line is geared towards working professionals so much, but that working professionals are geared towards the 1D line. The market for that camera is much larger than just big time working professionals who must have a speed demon of a camera. From well heeled people who want nothing less than a flagship item, to birders, to etc. It's just that working professional sports photographers get the visibility at the sidelines of big league sports.

The guys working for small local newspapers covering the high school stadiums aren't using from the 1D line in great numbers. The one I knew a few years ago was using a Rebel with an EF-s zoom. He's a working professional. What I was using just for fun outclassed what he had by a mile. I was just there to practice. Many of the parents were also using better.

So I always have to smile when people (not you) come on here saying the camera is made for working professionals as though that is what supports that or any other model. The working professionals aren't a big enough number to do it. How do we know? Just look at the huge market contraction over the past few years. Camera companies are fighting for their very lives right now. Just how many 1D toting working professionals cover an NFL game? They are the same folks covering MLB, NBA, Hockey, and other professional sports. There are only 32 NFL teams. Sports Illustrated now has 4 full time photographers. Yup, just 4. In 2013 they had 28. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-sports-illustrated-cut-all-of-its-photographers/


----------



## navastronia (Nov 28, 2019)

Aussie shooter said:


> Well, you can't really shoot action at 1/500 sec period. With or without IBIS. Not unless you want your subject to be blurred. But when the action does slow down it would certainly help to be able to drop your shutter speed and consequently lower your ISO along with it and that is where IBIS would help.



You certainly can, and I did, at 1/500, shoot marathon runners who were quite close to me. 1/500 is sufficient for sports that don't require explosive speed.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Nov 28, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Why are you trying to capture action at 1/500? Even if the camera is rock solid, your subjects will be blurry when moving at full speed.



At what full speed exactly and what direction relative to the camera line of sight?


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 28, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> At what full speed exactly and what direction relative to the camera line of sight?



Typical high school athletes running across the camera's field of view. I was panning with the torso, which is reasonably stable, but the extremities, particularly the feet, are blurred at 1/800. EOS 7D + EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II (200mm and moderately cropped, 1/800, f/2.8, ISO 3200). I was on the walkway of the home stands (roughly the same height and distance from the center of the field as the visitor stands seen in the background) moving from up in the stands where I had been shooting band members and students cheering and was moving back to the field level when #4 broke a long run that wound up being a touchdown.


----------



## GoldWing (Nov 28, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I'm not so sure I can agree that the 1D line is geared towards working professionals so much, but that working professionals are geared towards the 1D line. The market for that camera is much larger than just big time working professionals who must have a speed demon of a camera. From well heeled people who want nothing less than a flagship item, to birders, to etc. It's just that working professional sports photographers get the visibility at the sidelines of big league sports.
> 
> The guys working for small local newspapers covering the high school stadiums aren't using from the 1D line in great numbers. The one I knew a few years ago was using a Rebel with an EF-s zoom. He's a working professional. What I was using just for fun outclassed what he had by a mile. I was just there to practice. Many of the parents were also using better.
> 
> So I always have to smile when people (not you) come on here saying the camera is made for working professionals as though that is what supports that or any other model. The working professionals aren't a big enough number to do it. How do we know? Just look at the huge market contraction over the past few years. Camera companies are fighting for their very lives right now. Just how many 1D toting working professionals cover an NFL game? They are the same folks covering MLB, NBA, Hockey, and other professional sports. There are only 32 NFL teams. Sports Illustrated now has 4 full time photographers. Yup, just 4. In 2013 they had 28. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-sports-illustrated-cut-all-of-its-photographers/


Hi, Anyone can use the camera and obtain outstanding results if they know how to tell the camera what to do. Now spend another $60 to $70K on glass and a total of 18K for three bodies and you have a kit. Now add your wifi, 3 Canon 600 series flashes, your pelicans, mono and tripods, gimbals, cards, heads and we're at about 100K before we even step off the field and into the studio where another 100K with strobes, fixed lighting, modifiers, scrims, backdrops, gscreen, PC's and on and on. We are the guys paying the Bill's. "I am the person " paying the bills. I SHOOT ZERO video. And every major sports magazine, team, leauge, sports agent, athlete, newspaper, TV Network, website at some point has paid one if not all of my bills. 

What I want as someone who has paid their dues is 30MP at 15fps in RAW with cross-points across my entire OVF. The video/broadcast cameras I stand next to have $250,000 lenses on them. I don't do their job and they don't do mine. I've been hit twice on the sidelines once taken out in a stretcher with a TBI. Once for water sports I was hit by boat and dragged unconcious with a hole in my head and almost lost an eye.

I AM A SPORTS PHOTOGRAPHER


----------



## Aussie shooter (Nov 28, 2019)

navastronia said:


> You certainly can, and I did, at 1/500, shoot marathon runners who were quite close to me. 1/500 is sufficient for sports that don't require explosive speed.


As I said. When the action slows down it could be helpful. And a marathon(for the most part) does not happen at high speed. Limbs will still be blurred though. You wont stop that at 1/500sec


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 28, 2019)

IBIS is a tool. When it is useful, turn it on. When it isn’t, turn it off. End of discussion!


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 28, 2019)

GoldWing said:


> Hi, Anyone can use the camera and obtain outstanding results if they know how to tell the camera what to do. Now spend another $60 to $70K on glass and a total of 18K for three bodies and you have a kit. Now add your wifi, 3 Canon 600 series flashes, your pelicans, mono and tripods, gimbals, cards, heads and we're at about 100K before we even step off the field and into the studio where another 100K with strobes, fixed lighting, modifiers, scrims, backdrops, gscreen, PC's and on and on. We are the guys paying the Bill's. "I am the person " paying the bills. I SHOOT ZERO video. And every major sports magazine, team, leauge, sports agent, athlete, newspaper, TV Network, website at some point has paid one if not all of my bills.
> 
> What I want as someone who has paid their dues is 30MP at 15fps in RAW with cross-points across my entire OVF. The video/broadcast cameras I stand next to have $250,000 lenses on them. I don't do their job and they don't do mine. I've been hit twice on the sidelines once taken out in a stretcher with a TBI. Once for water sports I was hit by boat and dragged unconcious with a hole in my head and almost lost an eye.
> 
> I AM A SPORTS PHOTOGRAPHER


You don't pay the bills. I understand what you want, but the fact is that you are a drop in the bucket compared to the market as a whole. That is the market Canon caters to. Much of what you list, Canon doesn't make.


----------



## Quackator (Nov 28, 2019)

Joules said:


> I'm once again surprised at how afraid of change come people appear to be.



That is often the case when people like you don't understand the technical details.



Joules said:


> How can you be so critical of IBIS when in lens Is is just fine? Moving parts
> are moving parts, I don't see how one would be a concern for reliability, life
> time, tilted image plain and so in, an the other is not.



The lens IS moves a lens in a magnetic field, IBIS moves the whole imaging unit.
You obviously have no idea about what the wiring to the sensor looks like, 
and what it means for the lifespan of thin conductors if they are constantly 
moved, bent back and forth. Try to bend a paper clip open and close a few 
hundred times. What do you think why the Sony cameras are so great in 
overheating (showstopper, if your camera refuses to run), and why Canon 
bolted heatpipes to the senor of the 1D-X MkII?

Modern imagers generate a lot of heat that must be dissipated unless you
want to kill it. Unless you have heatpipes like Canon does, or bolt the sensor 
to a massive aluminum cooler like Leica does, you need active forced ventilation.
Which translates to a dust and moisture intrusion vector.

Lens IS moves only in two dimensions, IBIS also tilts. 10 micrometers of
play will give you unsharp corners. Have seen that on Nikon Z cameras already.



Joules said:


> From my point of view, with a decent IBIS implementation, it should alway
> be possible to lock the sensor down.



You are obviously not an engineer.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 28, 2019)

GoldWing said:


> Hi, Anyone can use the camera and obtain outstanding results if they know how to tell the camera what to do. Now spend another $60 to $70K on glass and a total of 18K for three bodies and you have a kit. Now add your wifi, 3 Canon 600 series flashes, your pelicans, mono and tripods, gimbals, cards, heads and we're at about 100K before we even step off the field and into the studio where another 100K with strobes, fixed lighting, modifiers, scrims, backdrops, gscreen, PC's and on and on. We are the guys paying the Bill's. "I am the person " paying the bills. I SHOOT ZERO video. And every major sports magazine, team, leauge, sports agent, athlete, newspaper, TV Network, website at some point has paid one if not all of my bills.
> 
> What I want as someone who has paid their dues is 30MP at 15fps in RAW with cross-points across my entire OVF. The video/broadcast cameras I stand next to have $250,000 lenses on them. I don't do their job and they don't do mine. I've been hit twice on the sidelines once taken out in a stretcher with a TBI. Once for water sports I was hit by boat and dragged unconcious with a hole in my head and almost lost an eye.
> 
> I AM A SPORTS PHOTOGRAPHER



You and the 20-30 others that are left. None of whom could afford to replace all of that 100K worth of lighting and $60-70K worth of lenses you claim you own/need on what being a "SPORTS PHOTOGRAPHER" pays these days. Canon needs to sell more than a couple of hundred or even a couple of thousand 1D X Mark III bodies to break even on it. Once upon a time a couple of decades ago there were tens of thousands of you. Now there aren't.

Every currently employed PJ I know loves to bitch about being expected to come back from every single assignment they're given with video footage as well as stills.

P.S. I'm pretty sure Iooss and Leifer never owned anywhere near that much in lenses, much less lighting. They knew how to rent it when they needed it, if they couldn't check it out of the SI equipment locker.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 28, 2019)

Quackator said:


> Lens IS moves only in two dimensions, IBIS also tilts. 10 micrometers of
> play will give you unsharp corners. Have seen that on Nikon Z cameras already.



Canon claims that the "Hybrid IS" in the EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS Macro also corrects for shift movement as well as rotational pitch and yaw.


----------



## Dockland (Nov 28, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> No. A "development announcement" was released. It's the first "official" acknowledgment that Canon even is working on a 1D X Mark III.


Thanks, my bad. Got an email from Canon about it a week or two ago.


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 28, 2019)

navastronia said:


> You certainly can, and I did, at 1/500, shoot marathon runners who were quite close to me. 1/500 is sufficient for sports that don't require explosive speed.


If you are panning that is.


----------



## Joules (Nov 28, 2019)

My point is not that implementing IBIS is a simple endeavor and Canon is "behind" for not including it. There are a number of valid concerns with such an implementation, you named a fair number of them.


My point is that Canon didn't put a half baked IBIS system into any body yet, so if the 1DX III is one of the first ILC where we'll see it, I don't see any reason to fear that to be a half baked implemtation either. They have their standard and know what the market expects such a camera to deliver better than any of us, and if a feature is unable to meet those demands it won't be present in the 1DX III.

I can understand not wanting to have a poorly implemented version, and going with none instead of that. But preferring not to have it over having a good implementation which can be ignored if one wishes so is something I find hard to comprehend.



Quackator said:


> You obviously have no idea about what the wiring to the sensor looks like,
> and what it means for the lifespan of thin conductors if they are constantly
> moved, bent back and forth.


I can't have any idea about the wiring of an IBIS implementation that's not on the market. You seem to have that anyway, since you assume it must use thin conductors.

You are right in that I don't know much about wiring, I certainly would not know how to dimension cables for a given amount of expected static and dynamic stress. I would hope that Canon has people in their team who are more capable in this regard though, and could solve the issue with an appropriate design if there is a sufficient economical incentive. If that is the case will be seen over the course of the next year, when more high end Canon bodies are released.

Anyway, since you appear to have some grasp of the subject, I'm sure we would all appreciate if you could let us in on the knowledge a little instead of telling us what we don't know. What are the typical increases in design complexity and cost associated with making data cables compatible with constant motion? Is it outright impossible to find a suitable material / design to reach a target life time? 



Quackator said:


> You are obviously not an engineer.


Engineering has many disciplines and is not just about technical insight, but also about methods and more general design principles. I won't claim to have the expertise typically associated with a mechanical or electrical engineer, but I actually have the right to name myself an engineer. I don't think that matters in this context though.


----------



## Kit. (Nov 28, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Canon claims that the "Hybrid IS" in the EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS Macro also corrects for rotational movement as well as pitch and yaw.


It doesn't. It compensates for camera shifts.

We don't know yet how to make roll compensation by moving passive optical elements in the path of light possible without huge degradation of the image quality.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Nov 28, 2019)

Good shot! But on the technical side, 200mm and crop sensor = 320mm FF equivalent which is even more sensitive. 1/800s at 320mm is basically the same as 1/500s at 200mm, so in fact you're kinda proving the point that 1/500s is enough at 200mm 

In terms of the blur, all what matters is the angular speed. Say a 100m sprinter does roughly 10m a second, shooting at 1/500s from the side when he's moving perpendicularly to your line of sight, he'll pass 2cm in 1/500s, so it's a bit too much. But even 1/2000s won't be enough (he'll make 0.5cm in 1/2000s).

However if you shoot say at 1/500s and 15 degrees along his movement direction, 2cm turn into 2 * sin( 15 degrees ) = 0.51 cm, as if you were shooting at 1/2000s in the first example. So changing the angle from 90 to 15 degrees is like adding 2 stops of freedom.

Anyway, whatever the speed is, panning helps compensate that, but a good IS will help you with panning. Panning handheld without IS isn't that efficient.



Michael Clark said:


> Typical high school athletes running across the camera's field of view. I was panning with the torso, which is reasonably stable, but the extremities, particularly the feet, are blurred at 1/800. EOS 7D + EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II (200mm and moderately cropped, 1/800, f/2.8, ISO 3200). I was on the walkway of the home stands (roughly the same height and distance from the center of the field as the visitor stands seen in the background) moving from up in the stands where I had been shooting band members and students cheering and was moving back to the field level when #4 broke a long run that wound up being a touchdown.


----------



## GoldWing (Nov 28, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> You and the 20-30 others that are left. None of whom could afford to replace all of that 100K worth of lighting and $60-70K worth of lenses you claim "Claim" ??? *You're insulting*! you own/need on what being a "SPORTS PHOTOGRAPHER" pays these days. *"It pays well* Canon needs to sell more than a couple of hundred or even a couple of thousand 1D X Mark III bodies to break even "* So a 30MP frame at 15fps RAW is going to stop them?* on it. Once upon a time a couple of decades ago there were tens of thousands of you. Now there aren't.
> 
> *And those of us left are some of the most dedicated and talented. That's why we get paid and work when WE want.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Quackator (Nov 28, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Canon claims that the "Hybrid IS" in the EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS Macro also corrects for rotational movement as well as pitch and yaw.



Likely a misunderstanding - rotate a lens and the image will remain the same.
Horizon will not be leveled.


----------



## peters (Nov 28, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Not even sure why IBIS would be a priority for the 1DxIII line -- it's not a benefit for sports or other action.


I think it is a big benefit. The 1DX III appears to be very video-friendly with the 4k60 in camera RAW on a fullframe sensor. Just like the 1DX II, which had also an excellent 4k image and is still the only (nearly) Fullframe camera with 4k60. For video IBIS would be a great win. Especialy since its a quite small camera, compared to Cinema Cameras, which it can easily compete with (C200 for example)


----------



## sanj (Nov 28, 2019)

peters said:


> I think it is a big benefit. The 1DX III appears to be very video-friendly with the 4k60 in camera RAW on a fullframe sensor. Just like the 1DX II, which had also an excellent 4k image and is still the only (nearly) Fullframe camera with 4k60. For video IBIS would be a great win. Especialy since its a quite small camera, compared to Cinema Cameras, which it can easily compete with (C200 for example)


Yes yes. And who says people with 1dx can't/don't shoot street or landscape with it?


----------



## sanj (Nov 28, 2019)

GoldWing said:


> Hi, Anyone can use the camera and obtain outstanding results if they know how to tell the camera what to do. Now spend another $60 to $70K on glass and a total of 18K for three bodies and you have a kit. Now add your wifi, 3 Canon 600 series flashes, your pelicans, mono and tripods, gimbals, cards, heads and we're at about 100K before we even step off the field and into the studio where another 100K with strobes, fixed lighting, modifiers, scrims, backdrops, gscreen, PC's and on and on. We are the guys paying the Bill's. "I am the person " paying the bills. I SHOOT ZERO video. And every major sports magazine, team, leauge, sports agent, athlete, newspaper, TV Network, website at some point has paid one if not all of my bills.
> 
> What I want as someone who has paid their dues is 30MP at 15fps in RAW with cross-points across my entire OVF. The video/broadcast cameras I stand next to have $250,000 lenses on them. I don't do their job and they don't do mine. I've been hit twice on the sidelines once taken out in a stretcher with a TBI. Once for water sports I was hit by boat and dragged unconcious with a hole in my head and almost lost an eye.
> 
> I AM A SPORTS PHOTOGRAPHER


I AM A SPORTS PHOTOGRAPHER and want my camera to help me take various kinds of photographs.


----------



## peters (Nov 28, 2019)

sanj said:


> Yes yes. And who says people with 1dx can't/don't shoot street or landscape with it?


Yeah indeed =) People allways act like its not allowed to ever expect any kind of feature of the 1D that is not exklusively good for sports photographers. Like not including an intervallometer in the 1DX II - "I am a sports photog. I dont need this. Its good its not in there". There is simply no good reason AT ALL to not include basic stuff like this, even if it is MAINLY a sports camera.


----------



## sanj (Nov 28, 2019)

peters said:


> Yeah indeed =) People allways act like its not allowed to ever expect any kind of feature of the 1D that is not exklusively good for sports photographers. Like not including an intervallometer in the 1DX II - "I am a sports photog. I dont need this. Its good its not in there". There is simply no good reason AT ALL to not include basic stuff like this, even if it is MAINLY a sports camera.


Agree. 1dx is much much more than a sports camera. It is a great choice for people on expedition, people shooting difficult street photos, difficult concert photos, photos in low light, landscapes (it is the best landscape camera that Canon makes) and it is the best DSLR video camera that Canon makes. The ONLY 'drawback' it has is lower mpx than other models - and the lower mpx is welcome by many including me in this camera.


----------



## slclick (Nov 28, 2019)

Seriously, who has been complaining about the lack of quality IS in the latest batch of Canon lenses? They have it right with it being in the glass. I'd rather choose stabilization per lens and focal length than have it all the time in body with heating issues and the need to turn it off and on again. The lens setting is right there, not lost in menus and ready for tripod and low light work. I see no need to reinvent the wheel here just for the sake of doing what other brands do.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 28, 2019)

slclick said:


> Seriously, who has been complaining about the lack of quality IS in the latest batch of Canon lenses? They have it right with it being in the glass. I'd rather choose stabilization per lens and focal length than have it all the time in body with heating issues and the need to turn it off and on again. The lens setting is right there, not lost in menus and ready for tripod and low light work. I see no need to reinvent the wheel here just for the sake of doing what other brands do.



Canon is going to cater to their market. I'm not sure about the 1DX III having IBIS. Nobody but Canon and their trusted partners know at this point.

But IBIS is a strong selling point for Olympus, and faithful Canon shooters who are getting older with less steady hands see IBIS as a no-brainer. If Canon implements it properly, it should be a great marketing tool. Many customers of higher-end gear are now approaching or entering retirement age. They have the time and financial resources to buy the best. If they want IBIS, and they see the IBIS is effective, whether combined with IS lenses or with primes that don't currently have IBIS, give it to them.

I'd love a few stops of IBIS with the Rf 50mm f/1.2L, and even more so the Rf 85mm f/1.2L.

Related question: If sports photographers don't need IS, why did Canon include it on the Big Whites?

Over and over on this forum we learn about Canon mulling over some additional feature that upsets a few reactionary photographers. Was AE controversial? Was AF? Was digital? Was lens IS? It's like there is a fear that a new feature is going to _positively_ _ ruin_ photography.

Or maybe it's a fear that Canon is going to start putting out half-baked, inferior products just to satisfy a market segment, and _positively ruin_ its own brand?

I'd say we are enjoying the golden age of photography. Who cares if everybody is taking pictures? The fact is, more people can take better pictures than ever before in history. If somebody loves photography, it shouldn't matter if they are the only photographer in the world, or only one of billions.

It is frustrating to invest money, to have built a skill-set over years, and see that the market for professional photographers' services and products has become profitable for only a slim few. Maybe this is a "bad" thing, like Amazon's displacement of untold numbers of businesses has been bad, and the Internet making it possible for radiologists and accountants and para-legals to be outsourced to nations with dirt cheap labor costs.

But it sure gets tiresome to hear over and over how photography is falling down around our heads. Either pursue it as a hobby, a tough business, a crazy passion...Or find a better way to spend our limited days. And consider reading Seneca's _On the Brevity of Life. _

Happy Thanksgiving!


----------



## Joules (Nov 28, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Or maybe it's a fear that Canon is going to start putting out half-baked, inferior products just to satisfy a market segment, and _positively run_ its own brand?


Maybe it's secretely the Sony Fan Boys and "Canon is *******" fellows fearing Canon might take away their purpose in life by leaving nothing to criticise in the spec sheets


----------



## SteveC (Nov 28, 2019)

Joules said:


> Maybe it's secretely the Sony Fan Boys and "Canon is *******" fellows fearing Canon might take away their purpose in life by leaving nothing to criticise in the spec sheets



Yeah, they probably popped blood vessels when Canon added 24p back in.


----------



## Quackator (Nov 28, 2019)

Joules said:


> But preferring not to have it over having a good implementation which
> can be ignored if one wishes so is something I find hard to comprehend.



It is to be doubted that there is such a thing as a good implementation 
at the current state of technology. Current implementations of high rez 
and high framerate video imagers all face massive heat problems already
without IBIS. Flying a sensor for IBIS aggravates the problem dramatically.

Imager heat is the natural enemy of IBIS.



Joules said:


> I can't have any idea about the wiring of an IBIS implementation that's not
> on the market. You seem to have that anyway, since you assume it must
> use thin conductors.



Simple physics. A quarter inch copper wire isn't flexible enough.
Thickness/durability or flexibility, can't have both.

Wiring needs to be flexible in order to allow for movement,
and movement introduces embrittlement over time.

Next is cooling. Electronics age faster at higher operating
temperatures, and for lack of heat transfer to a cooler block
or heat pipe, there is only convection cooling or force air 
cooling available. Which in turn is an intrusion vector for
moisture and dust. Not likely to be introduced in a 1 series 
body.

Last is shock proofing. IBIS sensors are usually locked down 
with magnetic force. Impacting the camera will introduce
impacts on the fragile sensor array. Nothing to add to precision.



Joules said:


> What are the typical increases in design complexity and cost
> associated with making data cables compatible with constant
> motion? Is it outright impossible to find a suitable material / design
> to reach a target life time?



"Target life time" is pretty clear sighted wording.
Are you happy with maybe the regular two year warranty
time frame plus a little?

I'm happier with tools that have no predetermined breaking point.


----------



## Joules (Nov 28, 2019)

Quackator said:


> I'm happier with tools that have no predetermined breaking point.


No offense, but that seems impossible if you talk about consumer devices. In the case of DSLR in particular, Canon even goes so far as to publish the number that the shutter mechanism is designed to life up to. The mirror assembly or buttons don't have such numbers publicly available I believe, nonetheless there will be a target life time that was set by Canon for these parts to match the desired compromise of cost and adding value to the customer. 

If everything were build to last almost to infinity, we would have to carry larger, heavier gear and pay more for it. If Canon is able to design an IBIS system that performs well enough to increase the number of sales enough to offset the development and construction cost and they can dimension the hardware so that it lasts longer than a certain threshold that is set by the market, they will put it in a 1DX III body. Otherwise they won't. I don't feel like there's any need to fear some new features for the 1DX III. And maybe there won't be any. Some people will be upset either way, unfortunately.


----------



## Kit. (Nov 28, 2019)

Quackator said:


> Simple physics. A quarter inch copper wire isn't flexible enough.
> Thickness/durability or flexibility, can't have both.
> 
> Wiring needs to be flexible in order to allow for movement,
> and movement introduces embrittlement over time.


Wiring shouldn't be a big problem. Headphones already exist for a long time.


----------



## PRINZMETAL (Nov 28, 2019)

The answer to the question has more to do with Canon camera sales/profits/cash flow than the benefits of any technology. And, how much Canon upper management perceive the future of high end canon camera economic future are going to be and where they feel best to place their investment bets. The question about high end canon camera stabilization as far as canon management is concerned is the investment cost vs added revenue/loss if they add it or don't. And, not what an individual photographer prefers or not. My guess if they had a choice they would rather not spend the R&d right now.


----------



## Jethro (Nov 28, 2019)

They've been spending bulk amounts of money and time on R&D on IBIS for years - look at the flurry of patents that have come out over that time. It is more of an issue of them becoming convinced internally that IBIS is better as opposed to in-lens stabilisation. Or, more likely, the mechanics of using both in tandem. A few years ago, you could make the argument that in-lens stabilisation was superior (at least the way Canon made lenses), but developments have moved on since then. I'm sure that the development of the newer generation of mirrorless bodies has also brought IBIS to the forefront.


----------



## GoldWing (Nov 28, 2019)

Skyscraperfan said:


> That would be a big plus, as IBIS usally achieves some 5 stops of stabilization, while IS in lenses normally is only good for three to four stops.


Only good???? 4 stops is huge. My 1DXII let's me shoot at 4000 ISO with no noise.Combine that with my 2.8 or 4.0 big whites and my "shutter speeds" freeze all the action. I guess if you like shooting at lower shutter speeds just know it won't freeze action even with 7 stops


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 29, 2019)

GoldWing said:


> ....



Please stop putting words in my mouth. If you wish to reply to my comments, learn how to place your comments outside of the quotation being attributed to me.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 29, 2019)

Quackator said:


> Likely a misunderstanding - rotate a lens and the image will remain the same.
> Horizon will not be leveled.




I think it is the distinction between tilt and shift. Tilt rotates the camera/lens around an axis perpendicular to the lens' optical axis (not around the lens' optical axis), shift is a non-rotational movement along the plane of the sensor.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 29, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Good shot! But on the technical side, 200mm and crop sensor = 320mm FF equivalent which is even more sensitive. 1/800s at 320mm is basically the same as 1/500s at 200mm, so in fact you're kinda proving the point that 1/500s is enough at 200mm
> 
> In terms of the blur, all what matters is the angular speed. Say a 100m sprinter does roughly 10m a second, shooting at 1/500s from the side when he's moving perpendicularly to your line of sight, he'll pass 2cm in 1/500s, so it's a bit too much. But even 1/2000s won't be enough (he'll make 0.5cm in 1/2000s).
> 
> ...



There are two ways of looking at that. It is true that the image is cropped, but if I were standing closer (it's about half as far from the sideline where I would normally have been to where he was on the field than it was from where I was standing), then I would have had to zoom out a bit to make the athlete the same size in the image, because he would have been a larger angular size from the shorter distance, and thus the same amount of movement would have been more blurry than from further away. Measuring it on google earth the sideline is roughly halfway between where I was standing when I took this shot and the near hash marks near where he was running. The field has been replaced with an artificial rug since I took that shot, but I do not think any of the field lines moved much, if any. The stands were not altered at all.

The red dot on the field is the runner, the green dot is where I was standing, the yellow line is where we're allowed to be on the sideline.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 29, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Related question: If sports photographers don't need IS, why did Canon include it on the Big Whites?



^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 29, 2019)

Joules said:


> Maybe it's secretely the Sony Fan Boys and "Canon is *******" fellows fearing Canon might take away their purpose in life by leaving nothing to criticise in the spec sheets





SteveC said:


> Yeah, they probably popped blood vessels when Canon added 24p back in.



24p? IBIS?

OH NO!!!! CANON IS NOT *******!!!!


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 29, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Anyway, whatever the speed is, panning helps compensate that, but a good IS will help you with panning. Panning handheld without IS isn't that efficient.



I do not honestly remember if IS was turned off or on when I took this. I usually have it turned off when shooting the field from the sideline, but will turn it on when shooting people in the much darker stands that require slower Tv. I had already changed my Tv back to the "field" setting as I walked back down toward the ramp to the field (if I had even used the"long" body while in the stands - most of the work I do there is with my "wide" FF body plus either 17-40mm, 24-70mm, or 24-105mm lenses). I've been working on my panning technique for about 35 years or so... and the monopod certainly helps. Again, I do not remember if I had the leg of the monopod extended enough to use it or if it was still shortened as I often have it when walking through the crowd. By the time I get to the end of the stands where the ramp is, there are very few folks and I'll often go ahead and start setting things back the way I plan to use them down on the sideline as I'm walking once I'm past the 25-30 yard line where the crowd thins out.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 29, 2019)

Joules said:


> No offense, but that seems impossible if you talk about consumer devices. In the case of DSLR in particular, Canon even goes so far as to publish the number that the shutter mechanism is designed to life up to. The mirror assembly or buttons don't have such numbers publicly available I believe, nonetheless there will be a target life time that was set by Canon for these parts to match the desired compromise of cost and adding value to the customer.
> 
> If everything were build to last almost to infinity, we would have to carry larger, heavier gear and pay more for it. If Canon is able to design an IBIS system that performs well enough to increase the number of sales enough to offset the development and construction cost and they can dimension the hardware so that it lasts longer than a certain threshold that is set by the market, they will put it in a 1DX III body. Otherwise they won't. I don't feel like there's any need to fear some new features for the 1DX III. And maybe there won't be any. Some people will be upset either way, unfortunately.




If a Canon camera goes in for a second shutter replacement (following a first shutter replacement that replaced the original shutter), Canon will not do the second shutter replacement unless the owner also authorizes a mirror box replacement. So my guess is that Canon rates the entire mirror box assembly at about twice the life of the shutter assembly.

It was not that unusual for heavily used early 1-Series digital bodies to get a shutter replaced around 250-300K frames and need another at around 500-600K back when many press organizations only upgraded on an "odd" or "even" cycle of every other update. The 1D Mark II and 1Ds Mark II had 200K shutter ratings, the 1D Mark III, 1D Mark IV, and 1Ds Mark III had 300K shutter ratings. Film bodies were usually used for much longer time periods, but didn't typically have near as many frames put on them over that longer time period as what digital bodies tend to rack up in press use. Remember, many PJs back in the day had multiple bodies for each speed/type of film they shot...


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 29, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Wiring shouldn't be a big problem. Headphones already exist for a long time.



Yeah, and how often do the wires in headphones oscillate back and forth over several millimeters of distance at several thousands of cycles per second? The wires in headphones are usually attached to the non-moving parts (the linear equivalent of stators) of the voice coil or armature, not the moving parts.


----------



## Quackator (Nov 29, 2019)

Joules said:


> I don't feel like there's any need to fear some new features for the 1DX III.
> And maybe there won't be any.



If the inherent disadvantages weren't so clearly known, I would agree.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Nov 29, 2019)

Quackator said:


> If the inherent disadvantages weren't so clearly known, I would agree.


But if Canon do not feel as though they can overcome those inherent disadvantages then I doubt they would put the feature into a 1d series body. So my guess is that it either won't go in or if it does it will be the best and most reliable IBIS ever made


----------



## raptor3x (Nov 29, 2019)

Quackator said:


> Imager heat is the natural enemy of IBIS.



Most IBIS system have the back of the sensor resting on surface bearings although I think some of the older cameras use a low friction plate behind the sensor. There's not a huge difference in heat conduction away from the sensor for IBIS vs non-IBIS systems.





Quackator said:


> Thickness/durability or flexibility, can't have both.



The flex connector used are quite durable. As long as the strain, which is directly related to the bend radius of the flex connector, is kept under the endurance limit of the materials this is a non-issue. If high-cycle fatigue failures where a problem with IBIS systems we certainly would have seen many examples of this by now. Even specifically searching I can't find even a single anecdotal reference to such a failure.


----------



## Quackator (Nov 29, 2019)

raptor3x said:


> There's not a huge difference in heat conduction away from the sensor for IBIS vs non-IBIS systems.



Enough to make the Sony's with their relatively low data rate 
stop recording because of overheating on a regular basis.

No overheating known from 1D-X MkII bodies.

Look at the active cooling in XC15, BMPCC and RED cameras.
They don't even have IBIS and still struggle to keep those chips
down at acceptable temperatures.

Remember: People are asking for more resolution, higher 
frame rates, lower rolling shutter effects. Three things 
immediately connected to the generation of heat.

There is a reason why Canon has filed patents connected 
to sensor cooling efforts. This is one of the biggest problems, 
and IBIS makes it even bigger. You can't fly a sensor with 
heatpipes attached.



raptor3x said:


> If high-cycle fatigue failures where a problem with IBIS systems we certainly would
> have seen many examples of this by now. Even specifically searching I can't find
> even a single anecdotal reference to such a failure.



The question is: Will the camera report sensor wiring embrittlement,
or will it report any other unspecific error message, or will the camera
just play dead? And will Sony or Olympus tell camera owners that IBIS
killed their camera, dragging that as a potential point of failure into the 
public eye?


----------



## Kit. (Nov 29, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Yeah, and how often do the wires in headphones oscillate back and forth over several millimeters of distance at several thousands of cycles per second?


That's how headphones produce sound.

Anyway, one does not need "several thousands of cycles per second" for IBIS.



Michael Clark said:


> The wires in headphones are usually attached to the non-moving parts (the linear equivalent of stators) of the voice coil or armature, not the moving parts.


The voice coil is usually connected to the diaphragm. The magnet, being much heavier, is the stator.


----------



## raptor3x (Nov 29, 2019)

Quackator said:


> Enough to make the Sony's with their relatively low data rate
> stop recording because of overheating on a regular basis.



When the A6500 was released, it actually had _less_ issues with overheating than the A6300 while shooting 4K, not more as you would expect if IBIS was a significant limitation on heat transfer.



Quackator said:


> No overheating known from 1D-X MkII bodies.



Much larger body and probably a better overall thermal design. Look at the Panasonic GH5, that has IBIS and can record unlimited 4K60 video.



Quackator said:


> There is a reason why Canon has filed patents connected
> to sensor cooling efforts. This is one of the biggest problems,
> and IBIS makes it even bigger. You can't fly a sensor with
> heatpipes attached.



You know that the sensor isn't actually floating in an IBIS system, right? People tend to get confused when some of the companies use marketing language like "magnetically levitated" but the sensor is actually always in contact with a set of surface bearings against the back of the sensor.




Quackator said:


> The question is: Will the camera report sensor wiring embrittlement,
> or will it report any other unspecific error message, or will the camera
> just play dead? And will Sony or Olympus tell camera owners that IBIS
> killed their camera, dragging that as a potential point of failure into the
> public eye?



Unlikely, the but if high cycle fatigue was an issue we would see older cameras with IBIS failure at a pretty consistent rate. Like I said before, if the flex connector is designed such that the maximum stress seen is below the endurance limit than fatigue failure will never occur.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 29, 2019)

The whole "IBIS causes overheating" and "wire embrittlement" thing is way overblown. Flex circuits have been produced and used for many years in safety critical applications. IBIS has also been around for many years. I don't really have a dog in this fight as I don't care whether the cameras get IBIS or not. However, making up and blaming problems on a particular feature with zero substantiation becomes a circular argument that makes zero sense and starts to feel like somebody wants to be right no matter what the evidence, or lack of it, shows.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 30, 2019)

Kit. said:


> That's how headphones produce sound.
> 
> Anyway, one does not need "several thousands of cycles per second" for IBIS.
> 
> ...



Headphones oscillate at distances of "fractions" of millimeters, not "several millimeters".


----------



## wtlloyd (Nov 30, 2019)

sanj said:


> How long are you willing to wait?


A couple years. 5DIV working fine.


----------



## Cyborx (Dec 9, 2019)

CANON is clearly behind... they woke up too late.
But hey, if you don't care about absolute sharpness in your photos and are willing to pay double for your gear.. go ahead, stick with Canon.
Canon gear was OK for me for 15 odd years but now it is time to go for really sharp pictures with eye AF and silent shutters.. Canon cannot keep up with that stuff, obviously.
Of all brands, Canon should have been FIRST to come up with these innovations, they should be ashamed of themselves, letting so many (OVERPAYING) pro's stand in the cold for so many months now. We are working with prehistoric gear now. And keep in mind guys, if SONY didn't come up with some kick-a** mirrorless cameras, Canon would just launch an 1Dx mark III with a little more fps, a little more ISO performance, a little more megapixels, maybe WiFi, and let you pay a fortune for it (6500 euros).

I just call that LAZY upgrading. And a few months later they put these new (1Dx III) specs in the Canon 5D line and let people pay half the price. 
That was Canons business model for the past couple of years.. 

But those times are over .. so either they need to step up, innovate fast and lower prices, or Canon is *******.


----------



## SteveC (Dec 9, 2019)

Cyborx said:


> But those times are over .. so either they need to step up, innovate fast and lower prices, or Canon is *******.



Sony just gave you a pay raise, I see.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 9, 2019)

Cyborx said:


> CANON is clearly behind... they woke up too late.
> But hey, if you don't care about absolute sharpness in your photos and are willing to pay double for your gear.. go ahead, stick with Canon.
> Canon gear was OK for me for 15 odd years but now it is time to go for really sharp pictures with eye AF and silent shutters.. Canon cannot keep up with that stuff, obviously.
> Of all brands, Canon should have been FIRST to come up with these innovations, they should be ashamed of themselves, letting so many (OVERPAYING) pro's stand in the cold for so many months now. We are working with prehistoric gear now. And keep in mind guys, if SONY didn't come up with some kick-a** mirrorless cameras, Canon would just launch an 1Dx mark III with a little more fps, a little more ISO performance, a little more megapixels, maybe WiFi, and let you pay a fortune for it (6500 euros).
> ...


You Sony Ambassadors are always easy to spot.


----------



## tron (Dec 10, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> You Sony Ambassadors are always easy to spot.


Indeed! His whole 10 messages are full of BS...


----------



## mpmark (Dec 18, 2019)

Canon1966 said:


> IBIS finally, hopefully.



Yes your photography is about to leap to the next level, Lets go IBIS!!!


----------



## mpmark (Dec 18, 2019)

GoldWing said:


> So IBS will add an additional stop? Professional sports photogs are laughing. I'm shooting at 1/2500 and above and it's to my advantage to turn IS off at times. People can crow about IN Camera Stabilization but 1 to 2 stops it's not a reason to buy a new body. Now give me a 30MP frame at 15fps in RAW to enhance post-production. *All we want is an OVF, at 15fps RAW and 30MP frames with our big whites we spend $6K to $13K for and more cross-points across our OVF. *Give me the solid Canon tools we're used to. I'm a photographer, *not *a videographer. If I want to take 60fps or 120fps 4K video I'll buy a $1,000 Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera. I'm a professional sports photographer not _Steven Frig'n Spielberg_. Has anyone at Canon walked down the sidelines in the press pit at NFL, NBA, MLB or NHL? No one has come to us! No one asked us at America's Cup as we're getting drenched in water following a moving object in a moving object. No one came to us. We are professional sports photographers! Please don't fill my body with TOYS that take away from my photographs. Devote the MKIII to photographers... not enthusiasts. You took away our stock of CFast for Express cards. OK!!! Why give me 20 or 24MP's when that technology is in you *$600 consumer cameras?* If Canon can't deliver a 15fps, 30MP camera with enhanced IQ, DR, Resolution, Focus and Auto MA for our Big Whites I've got to wonder why we, or our agencies are to invest. *Every pro sport I shoot 15fps is more than enough. * I'm not producing a frig'n movie. When we broadcast it's a $200K Canon lens!!! Why screw with our cameras, we are photographers. Please *don't take away from my photographs by devoting so much of the camera to videography. Take that space and give us a better camera for photography. *We know what we shoot. The games, the sport, the athletes, the rules.... And 15fps is plenty. We want the DR and focus so at 15fps RAW we get the money shots. If we had 30MP's we can express more latitude *in production for post. *Can an executive sitting in an office in a chair understand that??? *We are sports photographers. *



First off, IBIS does nothing for moving subjects, how long have you been shooting again and have you heard of paragraphs?


----------



## mpmark (Dec 18, 2019)

Quackator said:


> Funny, nobody mentions the cooling problems and the reduced
> MTBF that IBIS brings along, or the possible tilted image plane,
> if the lock position isn't absolutely precise.
> 
> ...



exactly, just because Sony has it Canon has to do it? nonsense. This is also a camera designed for "moving" subjects with fast glass, IBIS is useless in that sense.


----------



## mpmark (Dec 18, 2019)

GoldWing said:


> Hi, Anyone can use the camera and obtain outstanding results if they know how to tell the camera what to do. Now spend another $60 to $70K on glass and a total of 18K for three bodies and you have a kit. Now add your wifi, 3 Canon 600 series flashes, your pelicans, mono and tripods, gimbals, cards, heads and we're at about 100K before we even step off the field and into the studio where another 100K with strobes, fixed lighting, modifiers, scrims, backdrops, gscreen, PC's and on and on. We are the guys paying the Bill's. "I am the person " paying the bills. I SHOOT ZERO video. And every major sports magazine, team, leauge, sports agent, athlete, newspaper, TV Network, website at some point has paid one if not all of my bills.
> 
> What I want as someone who has paid their dues is 30MP at 15fps in RAW with cross-points across my entire OVF. The video/broadcast cameras I stand next to have $250,000 lenses on them. I don't do their job and they don't do mine. I've been hit twice on the sidelines once taken out in a stretcher with a TBI. Once for water sports I was hit by boat and dragged unconcious with a hole in my head and almost lost an eye.
> 
> I AM A SPORTS PHOTOGRAPHER



great life story, how cute


----------



## Baron_Karza (Dec 19, 2019)

mpmark said:


> Yes your photography is about to leap to the next level, Lets go IBIS!!!


It sure will, especially in LOW LIGHT. And my videos will no longer look like they were taken during an EARTHQUAKE!


----------



## Joules (Dec 19, 2019)

mpmark said:


> First off, IBIS does nothing for moving subjects, how long have you been shooting again


If you want to be so prickly, one could point out that certain IBIS systems help taking pictures of the night sky, which is indeed a moving subject, relatively speaking.


----------



## tron (Dec 19, 2019)

Joules said:


> If you want to be so prickly, one could point out that certain IBIS systems help taking pictures of the night sky, which is indeed a moving subject, relatively speaking.


Except when land is included in the photo too (landscape astrophotography) which is much more interesting.


----------



## Joules (Dec 19, 2019)

tron said:


> Except when land is included in the photo too (landscape astrophotography) which is much more interesting.


You can deal with that by either moving the sensor at half sidereal rate, which still allows for longer exposures and blurs the sky and ground evenly. Or you simply take separate exposures for the sky and ground. It's a tool that helps if used correctly.


----------



## tron (Dec 19, 2019)

Joules said:


> You can deal with that by either moving the sensor at half sidereal rate, which still allows for longer exposures and blurs the sky and ground evenly. Or you simply take separate exposures for the sky and ground. It's a tool that helps if used correctly.


That's correct you gain 1 stop of ISO if you move at half sidereal because you allow for double exposure in seconds. But there are devices like astrotrac for that (although astrotrac does not support half-sidereal but you can take one picture with astrotrac on and one off and merge). Still you had me at half sidereal. I like everything in one raw photo.

EDIT: And SIgma 14mm 1.8 helps with light collection


----------



## Aussie shooter (Dec 19, 2019)

Cyborx said:


> CANON is clearly behind... they woke up too late.
> But hey, if you don't care about absolute sharpness in your photos and are willing to pay double for your gear.. go ahead, stick with Canon.
> Canon gear was OK for me for 15 odd years but now it is time to go for really sharp pictures with eye AF and silent shutters.. Canon cannot keep up with that stuff, obviously.
> Of all brands, Canon should have been FIRST to come up with these innovations, they should be ashamed of themselves, letting so many (OVERPAYING) pro's stand in the cold for so many months now. We are working with prehistoric gear now. And keep in mind guys, if SONY didn't come up with some kick-a** mirrorless cameras, Canon would just launch an 1Dx mark III with a little more fps, a little more ISO performance, a little more megapixels, maybe WiFi, and let you pay a fortune for it (6500 euros).
> ...


If you cant get really sharp pictures with a canon then believe me. The camera is not your problem and you should take up fingerpainting or something.


----------



## Cyborx (Dec 24, 2019)

tron said:


> Indeed! His whole 10 messages are full of BS...



Ok, Canon lovers.. Let me get this straight.. I am a Canon user myself for over 15 years now.
If you only expect pro-canon halleluja feeds here, please go ahead and start your own forum. Maybe call it canonloversnomatterwhat.com (it's still available).

I am just a bit more critical when it comes to Canons R&D pace. It's unbelievably slow in my opinion.
Sony is ahead of the game now, it's sad but true. Calling me a Sony ambassador is just a sign of your Canon-lovers blindness... you guys better stay alert too.
Canon has to step up, and act NOW. Giving us all the competition is giving, and more. Or they will lose this battle I'm afraid.

We photographers don't need 8K Video, all we want is crispysharp images (wich is hard for some of Canon's EF lenses already), high ISO performance, a solid body, WiFi, speed, accuracy, and a good price.
And as ProFoto has a battery powered flash unit for on-camera use (A1) for quite some time now, it is not weird to ask Canon what they are doing in that field.

But hey, if we the only thing we do here is Canon YES! and Canon Halleluja! Just count me out...


----------



## SteveC (Dec 24, 2019)

Cyborx said:


> We photographers don't need 8K Video, all we want is crispysharp images (wich is hard for some of Canon's EF lenses already), high ISO performance, a solid body, WiFi, speed, accuracy, and a good price.



Yet another person who presumes to speak for "we." 

Stop putting words in MY mouth. Don't tell other people what *I* think.

This is getting tiresome.

I say that even though I have an utter lack of interest in 8K video myself. But I don't make the mistake of presuming to speak for anyone other than myself.


----------



## Kit. (Dec 25, 2019)

Cyborx said:


> Ok, Canon lovers.. Let me get this straight.. I am a Canon user myself for over 15 years now.


There is no reason why being a Canon user for any period of time would be a cure for bullshitting.


----------



## Cyborx (Dec 25, 2019)

SteveC said:


> Yet another person who presumes to speak for "we."
> 
> Stop putting words in MY mouth. Don't tell other people what *I* think.
> 
> ...



You know what I find tiresome.. Canon bringing the same old technologies to market and lenses that are just not sharp and launching pro bodies with minor upgrades compared to the previous model and charge a whopping 7k for it. 

As much as I don't want to tell you what to do  ... you must watch this video entirely and then you come back with your pro Canon stories.. 





After you see this, the only conclusion is that Canon has been asleep due to their monopoly, and let's hope they are awake now. 
Bring it on you friendly people!


----------



## SteveC (Dec 25, 2019)

Cyborx said:


> You know what I find tiresome.. Canon bringing the same old technologies to market and lenses that are just not sharp and launching pro bodies with minor upgrades compared to the previous model and charge a whopping 7k for it.
> 
> As much as I don't want to tell you what to do  ... you must watch this video entirely and then you come back with your pro Canon stories..
> 
> ...



And this has exactly WHAT to do with my complaint about your behavior?

I didn't make the claim that Canon is not behind. I didn't make a claim that it is behind. I'm just tired of people presuming to speak for me. And in response you just diverted to an irrelevancy.

Bullshitter tactics.


----------



## slclick (Dec 25, 2019)

Cyborx said:


> CANON is clearly behind... they woke up too late.
> But hey, if you don't care about absolute sharpness in your photos and are willing to pay double for your gear.. go ahead, stick with Canon.
> Canon gear was OK for me for 15 odd years but now it is time to go for really sharp pictures with eye AF and silent shutters.. Canon cannot keep up with that stuff, obviously.
> Of all brands, Canon should have been FIRST to come up with these innovations, they should be ashamed of themselves, letting so many (OVERPAYING) pro's stand in the cold for so many months now. We are working with prehistoric gear now. And keep in mind guys, if SONY didn't come up with some kick-a** mirrorless cameras, Canon would just launch an 1Dx mark III with a little more fps, a little more ISO performance, a little more megapixels, maybe WiFi, and let you pay a fortune for it (6500 euros).
> ...


People keep saying Canon is behind yet I'm doing just fine with a 2012 body (5D3) You have GAS and there's nothing wrong with that. I also drive a 9 year old car. Now, lenses are a very different matter, timeless if you chose the right ones. Now, are you telling me you can't make good photographs unless you have the latest tech? I'm sorry.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 26, 2019)

Cyborx said:


> You know what I find tiresome.. Canon bringing the same old technologies to market and lenses that are just not sharp and launching pro bodies with minor upgrades compared to the previous model and charge a whopping 7k for it.
> 
> As much as I don't want to tell you what to do  ... you must watch this video entirely and then you come back with your pro Canon stories..
> 
> ...



1) If you want a lens optimized for shooting flat test charts at relatively close distances, or "landscapes" at longish distances with the aperture wide open (who actually shoots landscapes that way?) in which the flat field correction needed to increase center to edge sharpness at the same focus distance ruins the character of out of focus highlights, the Sigma is definitely your lens. Heck, the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 beats the EF 50mm f/1.2 L in that respect. But that's not why the EF 50mm f/1.2 L exists.

“Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a *fish* by its ability to climb a *tree*, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” - Often attributed to Albert Einstein.

2) Why not compare Sigma's most recent wide aperture 50mm prime (this lens) to Canon's most recent wide aperture 50mm prime (RF 50mm f/1.2 L), rather than a Canon lens that has been around since 2006? The Canon RF 50mm f/1.2 L is 12 years more recent than the older EF lens. It's also designed to be a tool more suited to the things the Sigma is designed to do, rather than the things the Canon EF lens is made to do.


----------



## Baron_Karza (Dec 28, 2019)

slclick said:


> People keep saying Canon is behind yet I'm doing just fine with a 2012 body (5D3) You have GAS and there's nothing wrong with that. I also drive a 9 year old car. Now, lenses are a very different matter, timeless if you chose the right ones. Now, are you telling me you can't make good photographs unless you have the latest tech? I'm sorry.



So you'd be fine paying the same price for a 2011 car today, at the same cost for a 2020 model ???


----------



## slclick (Dec 28, 2019)

Baron_Karza said:


> So you'd be fine paying the same price for a 2011 car today, at the same cost for a 2020 model ???


You missed my point by many kilometers comrade.


----------



## Baron_Karza (Dec 28, 2019)

slclick said:


> You missed my point by many kilometers comrade.


No I didn't. If you think so, then explain.


----------



## slclick (Dec 28, 2019)

Baron_Karza said:


> No I didn't. If you think so, then explain.


You might need to try and sway me as to why cost and tech trumps art and know how. Look, the argument for a first time or replacement due to loss/theft is different than the replacement for upgrade/GAS. I was commenting on how so many folks spend endless amounts of energy on specs and arguments thereof and act as if once a new model arrives the old model ceases to work. It's tiresome. So your car analogy? It doesn't work for my angle.


----------

