# Patent: Further breakdown of Canon’s upcoming IBIS technology



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 13, 2019)

> A patent showing a breakdown of Canon’s IBIS development has appeared at the USPTO.
> *From Northlight:*
> Here’s one of the diagrams, which I’ve annotated to show the magnets (blue) and control coils (red)
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## SV (Jun 13, 2019)

"We expect to see Canon’s IBIS technology to arrive in the next major EOS R series camera. "

Let's hope so, and soon!!


----------



## keithcooper (Jun 13, 2019)

My hope is that they include a high res multishot mode using the IS such as I recently tested with the Panasonic S1R. Sure, there are limits with using it, but the results can be impressive.

See the examples in a thread here and in the review at









Panasonic Lumix S1R review. Using the 47MP full frame mirrorless camera


Panasonic Lumix S1R review. Using the 47MP full frame mirrorless camera with special emphasis on the 187MP multi-shot high resolution mode




www.northlight-images.co.uk


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 13, 2019)

Reading thru the patent (I did not bother with the really complex stuff, and there is a lot of it in this patent), I notice something that had not occurred to me, but its obvious now that they discuss it.

The effect is to cause optical distortion of the image undergoing stabilization. Below is just a snipped of the problem statement.

The patent proposes a correction of the effect using software.


[0003] Another element that degrades the captured image,
other than the image blur, is diffraction due to the aberration
of the lens, the aperture, or the like. An example of a
technique for reducing the degradation of captured images
due to the image blur and aberration, described above, is
disclosed in Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 2016-045488,
in which image stabilization and correction of astigmatism
and the curvature of field are achieved by moving part of the
imaging optical system in a direction different from the
optical axis. Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 2016-045488
discloses a configuration including a first correcting lens that
optically corrects an image blur by moving in a direction
different from the optical axis and a second correcting lens
that corrects aberration that has occurred when the first
correcting lens is moved in the direction different from the
optical axis.

The patent description seems to cover a mirrorless camera as in figure 1A, and also for a DSLR where in the flow chart, there is a step of deciding if the camera is in live view.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 13, 2019)

Serious Question: Can someone please explain why they care about IBIS?

Video: It makes sense if you shoot video, as a lens-based stabilization system is designed to work only when the shutter button is pressed and not continuously.
Old or Cheap Lenses: For those who don't want to pay to have stabilization in their lenses or have lenses that don't come with stabilization.

So many people talk as thought it is a "must have" and I'm trying to figure out why. 

For context, I am primarily a stills shooter. About half of my work is sports, and about half of my hobby shooting is birds in flight. No point in stabilization in those cases.
Most of my other work and hobby shooting involves people, often at events with limited light. With today's stabilized lenses, I can hand hold the camera and lens down to the point where motion blur from the subject is going to be a bigger detriment than shutter speed. So, no point in additional stabilization in those cases. 

What am I missing?


----------



## keithcooper (Jun 13, 2019)

There was a US patent application from back in March [USPTO] that has a very similar sensor mount included, that I remember looking at. There is another earlier that month [USPTO] which looked at aberrations and defocus as part of the IS controlled by two lens IS elements.

As expected, after Canon actually mentioned sensor IS, we see examples of aspects of doing it...


----------



## rjbray01 (Jun 13, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Serious Question: Can someone please explain why they care about IBIS?
> 
> Video: It makes sense if you shoot video, as a lens-based stabilization system is designed to work only when the shutter button is pressed and not continuously.
> Old or Cheap Lenses: For those who don't want to pay to have stabilization in their lenses or have lenses that don't come with stabilization.
> ...



From my point of view I would like to fit a cheap prime lens such as a Sigma 85mm f1.4 art lens ... and then use it to photograph my family in our home without using either a tripod or flash lighting.

The provision of in-camera image stabilization means that the exposure time can be longer, which in turn means that the ISO can be lower and hence the noise reduced.

Whilst this is possible with stabilized lenses they are generally more expensive and generally it seems primes are unstabilized - whether thy be from Canon or anyone else.

I'm not a professional photographer and I'm not shooting for a magazine ... 

However, I suspect that am probably NOT atypical of a substantial number of photographers known as "prosumers".

Hobbyists generally buy a lot of lenses because they want to play at everything ... unlike professionals who generally just want to do one specialized thing over and over again ...


----------



## keithcooper (Jun 13, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Serious Question: Can someone please explain why they care about IBIS?
> 
> Video: It makes sense if you shoot video, as a lens-based stabilization system is designed to work only when the shutter button is pressed and not continuously.
> Old or Cheap Lenses: For those who don't want to pay to have stabilization in their lenses or have lenses that don't come with stabilization.
> ...



I don't -need- it, but recent experience makes it something I'd like to see

It adds IS to my non IS lenses as an option - that's my expensive TS-E ones mainly
It gives the possibility of multi-shot high res imaging (see my earlier post and link)
If it works with lens IS, then I get even better IS for times it really helps me

I was so-so on it until I had the Panasonic S1R here for the review.

Downsides are that it tends to be more sensitive and prone to mechanical failure than not having it.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jun 13, 2019)

Ibis breakdown:


----------



## woodman411 (Jun 13, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Serious Question: Can someone please explain why they care about IBIS?
> 
> Video: It makes sense if you shoot video, as a lens-based stabilization system is designed to work only when the shutter button is pressed and not continuously.
> Old or Cheap Lenses: For those who don't want to pay to have stabilization in their lenses or have lenses that don't come with stabilization.
> ...



I'm in the same boat (not really caring about ibis), but only because I purposely got image stabilized lenses. If the lens doesn't need it, it would be relatively smaller, plus Canon's premium primes (RF 50, RF 85) don't have IS. For shooting people, IS is just some insurance, or peace of mind, against camera shake, at least for me. Combined with the R's accurate autofocus, my hit rate has been very high.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 13, 2019)

keithcooper said:


> My hope is that they include a high res multishot mode using the IS such as I recently tested with the Panasonic S1R. Sure, there are limits with using it, but the results can be impressive.
> 
> See the examples in a thread here and in the review at
> 
> ...


I'm sure they are aware of it, I thought they had a P&S that did something similar. For landscapes or non moving subjects, it would work.

This brings to mind, one of the gadgets I purchased around 1995 when digital cameras were just beginning to hit the market, and were very expensive. It used multiple captured frames from a analog camcorder and merged them to form a higher resolution image. It was even possible to get a 1500 X 1125 resolution image.


So, its very old technology.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jun 13, 2019)

unfocused said:


> For context, I am primarily a stills shooter. About half of my work is sports, and about half of my hobby shooting is birds in flight. No point in stabilization in those cases.



Sports and birds with long lenses and with no tripod- an IS is very useful in these cases. 
Hand-held portraiture - the same. IBIS would make a lot of good EF no-IS lenses more useful.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 13, 2019)

keithcooper said:


> I don't -need- it, but recent experience makes it something I'd like to see
> 
> It adds IS to my non IS lenses as an option - that's my expensive TS-E ones mainly
> It gives the possibility of multi-shot high res imaging (see my earlier post and link)
> ...


Thanks.

I think I am having a negative reaction to the many people on this forum who act as though Canon cameras are utterly unusable or shamefully outmoded because they haven't offered in-body stabilization. 

Part of me is always thinking: Am I going to regret not having that feature in my camera? That old FOMO (Fear of Missing Out). I'm inclined to think not in this case. 

The only non-stabilized lens I own is the fish-eye zoom and obviously, it's not much of an issue for a lens of that focal length. 

I did read your review and, as I recall, a significant portion of your business involves large-scale images for interior display, so I can see where every bit of sharpness you can squeeze out of an image would be important to you. 

Thanks also for participating in this forum generally. Your insights and experience add some much needed context to many discussions.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 13, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Old or Cheap Lenses: For those who don't want to pay to have stabilization in their lenses or have lenses that don't come with stabilization.


Adding extra, moving glass elements into the light path costs not only in money, but also in aberrations, flare, and size. If you need to add it inside a retrofocus lens, the lens will likely also need to be made more retrofocus.

For a company that manufactures both cameras and lenses, having IS in a camera means that some highest quality normal and wide-angle lenses could be made even better by not including the IS element.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 13, 2019)

IBIS that works would be great, even if it helped just three stops. Be grateful if your hands are so steady you don't need any kind of stabilization for general photography. Personally, I benefit greatly from lenses with IS when taking portrait shots. If I'm using a longer lens, say a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, I see benefits up to 1/500th. Again, if your hands are steady--throughout the day--be grateful.

And please don't keep repeating the myth that it doesn't help unless the subject is completely still. Slight subject motion PLUS camera shake results in many more slightly blurred shots than slight subject motion and a lens that has IS. Simply put, the combination of motions results in more blur than if at least the lens is stabilized.

While there is a demand for IBIS, I don't see it expressed negatively on CR unless the poster is generally bashing Canon in favor of brand X, Y, or Z. And these posters bash Canon over pretty much any random feature Canon does or does not offer.

What puzzles me is why members of CR who seem to genuinely enjoy Canon products get so nervous (for lack of a stronger description) about IBIS. Are you afraid Canon will botch it so badly it makes your pictures worse? Or that it will fail a few days after the warranty period? That it can't be disabled if you hate it? Just kind of odd that some of those who routinely defend Canon have so little faith the company can reliably implement IBIS.

For now and the foreseeable future, Canon offers bodies without IBIS. In what way will a new body with IBIS affect your photography? Why fret about it?


----------



## Photo Hack (Jun 13, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Serious Question: Can someone please explain why they care about IBIS?
> 
> Video: It makes sense if you shoot video, as a lens-based stabilization system is designed to work only when the shutter button is pressed and not continuously.



Are you sure?


----------



## addola (Jun 13, 2019)

keithcooper said:


> My hope is that they include a high res multishot mode using the IS such as I recently tested with the Panasonic S1R. Sure, there are limits with using it, but the results can be impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





All I hope is that Canon's IBIS come close to, or outperforms the one on Panasonic cameras


----------



## Adelino (Jun 13, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Serious Question: Can someone please explain why they care about IBIS?
> 
> Video: It makes sense if you shoot video, as a lens-based stabilization system is designed to work only when the shutter button is pressed and not continuously.
> Old or Cheap Lenses: For those who don't want to pay to have stabilization in their lenses or have lenses that don't come with stabilization.
> ...


The RF 28-70 f2.0 is certainly not an old or a cheap lens by any means.


----------



## amorse (Jun 13, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Thanks.
> 
> I think I am having a negative reaction to the many people on this forum who act as though Canon cameras are utterly unusable or shamefully outmoded because they haven't offered in-body stabilization.
> 
> ...


It's a non-necessity for 95% of my shooting, but I've been in a number of situations where I'd of appreciated it and used it. The place I think it is needed most (for me anyway) is with the 24-70 f/2.8L ii in lower light, though the announced RF will have IS so that issue may drop off a bit. While I don't do a lot of event shooting, I find that when the shutter speed drops my hands are not as steady as many others - my keeper rate due to hand shake seems low (maybe I'm just looking too close). For me, I typically stick close to 1 / 2x(focal length) of a second as to prevent my hand shake issues (i.e. 1/50 for 24mm, 1/100 for 50 etc.), which means I'm really ramping ISO. I used to aim for 1/ (focal length), but I found my missed shot frequency was pretty bad. Would IBIS alone make my decision on a camera purchase? Probably not as again, 95% of my shots are on a tripod. Reliability and weather sealing are a lot more important for me than IBIS.

The concerns with usability of Canon cameras are (in my opinion) overblown, but there are no doubt places which can be improved. Whether it is worth it for Canon to invest in those places to create a meaningful difference for users remains to be seen.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 13, 2019)

The rule of thumb is that OS is best for long lenses, IBIS is best for shorter lenses, and a combination of both is better than either. 

This is not to be confused with pixel shifting, which is the best way to do massive corrections in video.


----------



## Adelino (Jun 13, 2019)

rjbray01 said:


> Whilst this is possible with stabilized lenses they are generally more expensive and generally it seems primes are Hobbyists generally buy a lot of lenses because they want to play at everything ... unlike professionals who generally just want to do one specialized thing over and over again ...


Sounds like me, I have random lenses including a Lensbaby, a macro, telephoto zooms, primes etc, I buy them when I find a nice bargain and play around with them. It helps me grow as a photographer, I like to take pics of everything and my assortment of lenses lets me try out everything.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 13, 2019)

How long does it take IBIS to settle down? I find that I often lose shots when switching subjects (sports) and engaging the shutter quickly (70-200 and 100-400) due to IS. The initial shot is bad but once the IS settles, the subsequent pics are sharp. If future cameras come with IBIS, I'd like to have the feature to disable and lock the sensor in place.

For shorter focal lengths (< 50mm), I find IS to be less useful. I've used the 16-35 f/4 IS, 24 f/2.8 IS, 35 f/2 IS and 28 f/2.8 IS, and they are more useful for still life than living subjects. Hypothetically, I would be able to use the 16-35 f/4 IS at 1/8s, but living subjects aren't typically still enough for that. Hopefully, IBIS + IS would be better. At 16mm, IS was only good for about 1-2 stops...


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jun 13, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Serious Question: Can someone please explain why they care about IBIS?
> 
> Video: It makes sense if you shoot video, as a lens-based stabilization system is designed to work only when the shutter button is pressed and not continuously.
> Old or Cheap Lenses: For those who don't want to pay to have stabilization in their lenses or have lenses that don't come with stabilization.
> ...


sharper images in general. ability to shoot at lower shutter speeds with sarper image and at lower isos.. stable images for video.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 13, 2019)

As camera sensors add more and more photosites, even slight vibration keeps the user from getting revolutionist that the camera can produce.

Many of the fast primes might benefit from IS, but it is difficult to make them with IS. If A 70-100 mp body is coming out, IBIS would help with handheld shots of static where a fast shutter can't be used.

It is only useful for certain situations, but nice to have as another tool.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 13, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Serious Question: Can someone please explain why they care about IBIS?
> 
> Video: It makes sense if you shoot video, as a lens-based stabilization system is designed to work only when the shutter button is pressed and not continuously.
> Old or Cheap Lenses: For those who don't want to pay to have stabilization in their lenses or have lenses that don't come with stabilization.
> ...


If I recall my owners manual correctly, the 6D2 uses the lens’s stabilization for video in conjunction with the kind of cropping and shifting you can do in post (FCP X or Premiere, e. g.). So the in-lens version apparently does work with video. If you switch it off on the lens barrel, the camera will disable the software stabilization, too. I think if the lens doesn’t have stabilization built in, that the camera will still try to use the software, but I’m not sure. I know from using the feature in the computer, that can be a mixed blessing. After seeing the results, I occasionally turn it back off. Adding IBIS to the mix could give even better results if cleverly programmed to use the best features of each method.

Also note the message above (and has been stated on this board many times) that IBIS is most effective on shorter lenses (where it may be less needed), and in-lens stabilization is better for longer lenses. I’m amazed at how well it works in my 100-400mm II. In decent light, I have no trouble getting sharp hand-held shots at 400mm.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 13, 2019)

So many responses that missed the point of my question -- which was not about the benefits of stabilization, but the benefit of in-body versus in-lens.

Working backwards:

*Stevelee:* I'm not familiar with the 6DII, but I think you are referring to the cropping of video to stabilize a scene, as can be done with Premiere Pro. That's actually a good argument in favor of 4K, which allows video shooters to crop and still retain a full HD image. I was aware that Canon's 18-135 EF-S lens has something they call Dynamic Image Stabilization to improve video performance, but was not aware that Canon used in-lens stabilization systems with specific cameras in conjunction with video, but that's a nice feature, although it's not relevant to IBIS.

*Mt. Spokane:* Good point about fast primes. Might be relevant to others, but I'm not a fast prime user, so doesn't apply to me. However, it certainly may apply to others.

*Don Haines:* I had not heard that rule of thumb regarding telephotos vs. wide angles. I'm curious what the reasons might be for the difference.

*Amorse and Adelino:* I can see where it would be nice as a way to essentially add stabilization to an expensive Canon lens like the 24-70. I don't think of that as an inherent benefit of IBIS, but rather as sort of an after-market solution for the manufacturer's failure to include it in the original.

*Photo Hack:* Your response is not clear.Maybe you are referring to the feature that Stevelee references.

*YouengLinger: *Most of your answer (if you were responding to me) seems to be about the benefits of IS generally. Also, I'm not sure who you think is "repeating the myth that it doesn't help unless the subject is completely still." That's certainly not what I said. In my experience, modern lens IS is good enough to allow handholding down to somewhere around 1/4 to 1/2 second. If you pick your shots carefully, you can catch a speaker during a pause, but when you get down in that range, is does get very difficult to get a sharp image of a person. Still, how is that going to be different with in-body stabilization?



> What puzzles me is why members of CR who seem to genuinely enjoy Canon products get so nervous (for lack of a stronger description) about IBIS. Are you afraid Canon will botch it so badly it makes your pictures worse? Or that it will fail a few days after the warranty period? That it can't be disabled if you hate it? Just kind of odd that some of those who routinely defend Canon have so little faith the company can reliably implement IBIS.
> 
> For now and the foreseeable future, Canon offers bodies without IBIS. In what way will a new body with IBIS affect your photography? Why fret about it?



This portion of your post is truly perplexing. Who has ever said they were nervous about IBIS? And, who has ever said they don't think Canon can implement it. I've never read any post to that effect. Some people are concerned about the durability of IBIS, but I assume that before Canon introduces it, they will stress test it. The only concern that I stated was a very vague one that I was overlooking something that would cause me to regret purchasing a body without IBIS, if Canon releases one with IBIS.

So far, none of the answers to my question have given me cause for concern. I haven't found anything in these many answers that makes me feel that IBIS is so useful that I would have buyer's remorse for purchasing a body without IBIS.

*Kit*: You make a valid point. I'm not a lens designer, but it certainly does seem logical to me that some lens designs would be better served by in-body stabilization.

I've already responded to *Keith Cooper* and he makes valid points. 

*Quarkcharmed:* I'm not questioning the value of IS in general. I use it routinely. Question was about the value of in-body over in-lens. 

Apologies if I've missed or offended anyone.


----------



## max_sr (Jun 13, 2019)

Random Orbits said:


> How long does it take IBIS to settle down? I find that I often lose shots when switching subjects (sports) and engaging the shutter quickly (70-200 and 100-400) due to IS. The initial shot is bad but once the IS settles, the subsequent pics are sharp. If future cameras come with IBIS, I'd like to have the feature to disable and lock the sensor in place.



IBIS is a lot quicker than lens IS.


----------



## mbike999 (Jun 13, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Serious Question: Can someone please explain why they care about IBIS?



It's just a different way of stabilizing the optical system versus lens OIS. It provides flexibility of stabilizing non-stabilized lenses, and it can sometimes be paired with lens OIS to take stabilization a step further. I agree - no advantage when tracking fast moving subjects or when movement induced motion blur is a factor, however I appreciate that it allows me to reduce shutter speeds (and therefore ISO) when capturing stationary subjects handheld. 

The most extreme examples of IBIS open up some interesting opportunities like handheld long-exposures and ultra high-res modes, e.g. see Olympus E-M1X. It adds some new life to older non-stabilized lenses...think 400 5.6. Having a stabilized view when using a long lens like that is not insignificant. 

Whether or not these features are beneficial for someone depends on the use case. They certainly should not be a dealbreaker for anyone though.


----------



## Rivermist (Jun 13, 2019)

Adelino said:


> The RF 28-70 f2.0 is certainly not an old or a cheap lens by any means.


Indeed this is not about cheap or (always) old. I loved the EF 135mm f:2.0 L but in lower light it was less usable than the bulky white 70-200 L IS 2.8. After waiting forever for an EF 135mm IS L that never came, last year I finally bought the 85mm 1.4L IS because of the IS for low light / longer exposure capability. The IS adds a lot weight and bulk, and 85mm is a tad short of what I would really like. Prior to that I had also owned the only IS L prime short tele, the 100mm L macro 2.8 which was bulky and not very wide in aperture. The new RF lineup announces a 135mm 1.8 most probably without IS, and this is where IBIS helps. One could try also combining IBIS with the EF 135 2.0 and adapter, that lens can be had pre-owned for a handful of $$.


----------



## Mccamli (Jun 13, 2019)

unforced, in response to your original question:

#5
Serious Question: Can someone please explain why they care about IBIS?

The main things I can think about are the cost benefit and upgrade potential. You'd only have to pay for Is once in camera instead of paying for it in every lens. 

If there's some dramatic improvement in Ibis technology you'd just have to replace your body to avail of it with each of your lenses. 

Your conclusion that it's unlikely you'll have buyers remorse sounds reasonable in your situation. There may came a time where the majority of lenses are produced without IS but that's probably a while away yet.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 13, 2019)

unfocused said:


> So many responses that missed the point of my question -- which was not about the benefits of stabilization, but the benefit of in-body versus in-lens.
> 
> Working backwards:
> 
> ...




Unless you are ignoring the fact that many prime lenses still do not have IS, then asking why photographers want IBIS seems to be asking why any IS would be worthwhile.

As for "nervous," perhaps "agitated" would be a better choice? I'm perceiving in the tone of many posts about IBIS an irritation, an anxiety...Because why else would a handful of posters continue to ask why IBIS is a desirable feature? If a photographer doesn't need it fine, but if a photographer thinks it will help and wants a camera with the feature, and the manufacturer sees a chance to meet a demand, why has there been so much negative posting about IBIS? That's what I'm hoping you can answer for me.

In other words, why must IBIS be in any way controversial?

We won't know how well Canon's FF IBIS works with and without IS lenses until such a body is released. I'm one Canon customer who looks forward to trying one, as long as reputable reviews give it a thumbs up. Durability will take longer to determine.


----------



## djack41 (Jun 13, 2019)

Always late to the party. Time for Canon to really get it right.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 13, 2019)

unfocused said:


> *Stevelee:* I'm not familiar with the 6DII, but I think you are referring to the cropping of video to stabilize a scene, as can be done with Premiere Pro. That's actually a good argument in favor of 4K, which allows video shooters to crop and still retain a full HD image. I was aware that Canon's 18-135 EF-S lens has something they call Dynamic Image Stabilization to improve video performance, but was not aware that Canon used in-lens stabilization systems with specific cameras in conjunction with video, but that's a nice feature, although it's not relevant to IBIS.


Note that the point I was trying to make is that they already are doing hardware and software working together. With IBIS in the mix, it could work even better, particularly with certain focal lengths. Implementation would be an important issue. The crop-and-shift method can make for fuzzier pictures, though nowhere near what greater digital zoom does. Really optimizing the mix of methods could mitigate that somewhat. I've not tried tests comparing the effects in camera vs. FCP X or Premier or between the two programs.

BTW, the other camera I use regularly (mainly in traveling) is the G7X II. It has image stabilization that apparently combines hardware and software functions intelligently. I think the hardware part is optical rather than what you would mean by IBIS (other than the fact that of course whatever happens in that camera is in the body). Video can be very smooth taken as you walk. There is even a mode for dealing with tiny shakes on a tripod when shooting movies.

4K would give more to crop from, though if you are shaking enough to need that level of zoom, you might need to consult with a physician. But, yes, it could mitigate the problems. I shoot 4K on the rare instances that I shoot video on my iPhone. That compensates for using a wide angle lens all the time, and I can output to 1080p or 720p without upsampling the cropped results.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 14, 2019)

IBIS implementations tend to be 5 axis (yaw, pitch and roll movement, as well as shifting across vertical and horizontal axes ) whereas Canon lens IS is only yaw/pitch (pan/tilt). With 100mm macro being the exception with a hybrid 4 axis IS where angle/shift is included for handheld macro shots (released in 2009!). Roll is associated mostly with pressing the shutter button which lens IS cannot correct for. Note that IBIS will be silent whereas lens IS could have mechanical noise for quiet recordings.
Taking Wikipedia with a grain of salt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization), there are some interesting points made...
Image circle size with moving sensor,
Dual sensor/lens IS complexity when yaw/pitch movements are combined... whereas the simplest implementation is to leave yaw/pitch to the lens IS (where available) and 3 axis stabilisation to IBS
Limitation for telephoto focal lengths (referencing a paper in German)....
"limited by the rotational movement of the surface of the Earth, that fools the accelerometers of the camera. Therefore, depending on the angle of view, the maximum exposure time should not exceed 1⁄3 second for long telephoto shots (with a 35 mm equivalent focal length of 800 millimeters) and a little more than ten seconds for wide angle shots (with a 35 mm equivalent focal length of 24 millimeters), if the movement of the Earth is not taken into consideration by the image stabilization process"


----------



## PGSanta (Jun 14, 2019)

Some of you come off like old cooks not wanting the world to progress. Every major manufacturer in the full frame segment has recognized the value and market demand in an IBIS offering. Canon isn’t going to sit idle because some of you “don’t see why it’s needed.” 

Hopefully Canon will do it better than most. There’s an opportunity for them in this feature offering since Sony and Nikon have given us flawed IBIS systems at best. If Canon can match Panasonic, it’d be a huge win.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 14, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> Some of you come off like old cooks not wanting the world to progress. Every major manufacturer in the full frame segment has recognized the value and market demand in an IBIS offering. Canon isn’t going to sit idle because some of you “don’t see why it’s needed.”
> 
> Hopefully Canon will do it better than most. There’s an opportunity for them in this feature offering since Sony and Nikon have given us flawed IBIS systems at best. If Canon can match Panasonic, it’d be a huge win.


Does Panasonic offer a FF body?

And, btw, please don't say "come off like old cooks," as it may offend the actual old kooks.


----------



## BillB (Jun 14, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> Some of you come off like old cooks not wanting the world to progress. Every major manufacturer in the full frame segment has recognized the value and market demand in an IBIS offering. Canon isn’t going to sit idle because some of you “don’t see why it’s needed.”
> 
> Hopefully Canon will do it better than most. There’s an opportunity for them in this feature offering since Sony and Nikon have given us flawed IBIS systems at best. If Canon can match Panasonic, it’d be a huge win.



There is considerable space between the belief that IBIS is useless and the conviction that it could be a huge win, and I suspect quite a few of use are somewhere in the middle. If I am interested in sharp pictures, I know that one of the first things to think about is using a tripod. There are situations in which a tripod is inappropriate, but like many people, I will often try to get away without using one when I should do so. (One of the advantages of using Liveview on the back of the camera is that it is harder to avoid using a tripod, although people do--especially if they have a tilty-flippy screen.)

There are situations in which a tripod is inappropriate where IS or IBIS can permit slower shutter speeds, a smaller aperture or lower ISO than would be otherwise possible. In some of these situations, the subject will be sufficiently motionless for these shutter speeds, smaller apertures and/or ISO's to be useful. I have IS lenses and I use and value them. So for, me IBIS might be nice, but it would be something short of a huge win.


----------



## vjlex (Jun 14, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> IBIS that works would be great, even if it helped just three stops. Be grateful if your hands are so steady you don't need any kind of stabilization for general photography. Personally, I benefit greatly from lenses with IS when taking portrait shots. If I'm using a longer lens, say a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, I see benefits up to 1/500th. Again, if your hands are steady--throughout the day--be grateful.
> 
> And please don't keep repeating the myth that it doesn't help unless the subject is completely still. Slight subject motion PLUS camera shake results in many more slightly blurred shots than slight subject motion and a lens that has IS. Simply put, the combination of motions results in more blur than if at least the lens is stabilized.
> 
> ...


It's very reminiscent of the pre-flip screen days on this forum. There were so many people decrying the idea of an articulated flip screen, and I couldn't understand it. In general, I don't understand the concept of not wanting a new feature, simply based on the thinking that '_*I*_ don't use it now, so it will never be useful to _*me*_.' Nowadays, I hardly hear anyone complaining about the flip screens on Canon cameras. It actually now seems like one of the more beloved features.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Jun 14, 2019)

djack41 said:


> Always late to the party. Time for Canon to really get it right.



You must be fairly new. Depends what you're talking about. Just to name some of the new things that they made, no catch up.. DPAF, AI focusing flash, control ring on lenses, lens adapter with control ring or drop in filters. I do agree that Canon should get things right but to say that they're always late to the party.. again, depends in what context. I think we can agree that Canon doesn't get things wrong to the point of having recalls such as Nikon and Sony.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 14, 2019)

shunsai said:


> It's very reminiscent of the pre-flip screen days on this forum. There were so many people decrying the idea of an articulated flip screen, and I couldn't understand it. In general, I don't understand the concept of not wanting a new feature, simply based on the thinking that '_*I*_ don't use it now, so it will never be useful to _*me*_.' Nowadays, I hardly hear anyone complaining about the flip screens on Canon cameras. It actually now seems like one of the more beloved features.


When flip screens came out, people had legitimate concerns about their durability. Those concerns turned out to be unfounded, but it was never an objection to something new, rather it was a concern that proved to be unnecessary. (Personally, I never shared their concern, but I can see how some people were worried about the screens)

Nowadays, most of the criticism of flip screens comes from the fact that the real estate available on the back of cameras pretty much forces people to choose between a flip screen and joysticks and click wheels. There are many people, myself included, who do not want to give up the back ergonomics of the 1D, 5D and 7D to gain a flip screen. If one could have both, I imagine most people would take both. But at least with Canon so far, that has not been an option.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 14, 2019)

BillB said:


> There is considerable space between the belief that IBIS is useless and the conviction that it could be a huge win, and I suspect quite a few of us are somewhere in the middle...I have IS lenses and I use and value them. So for, me IBIS might be nice, but it would be something short of a huge win.



Yes. 

Unfortunately, it is a sign of the times we live in and the nature of internet boards that many people would rather argue than discuss a topic. 

I do appreciate those who took the time to provide respectful answers to my question. I hoped that by asking for input, I would get some different perspectives that would allow me and others to make an informed decision about the value of IBIS or more accurately, about the advantages of waiting until Canon implements the feature.

We all have to make our own decisions. Mine is that it is not such a useful feature *to me* to compel me to wait for it's implementation before purchasing an R camera.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jun 14, 2019)

unfocused said:


> *Quarkcharmed:* I'm not questioning the value of IS in general. I use it routinely. Question was about the value of in-body over in-lens.



Well to me it has a value in making my non-IS L lenses stabilised. Making the 24-70 f2.8 L a stabilised one will tremendously increase its usability.
Also if IBIS combined with lens IS adds a stop or two to overall stabilisation, it's a great thing to have for long zoom lenses.


----------



## venusFivePhotoStudio (Jun 14, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Serious Question: Can someone please explain why they care about IBIS?
> 
> Video: It makes sense if you shoot video, as a lens-based stabilization system is designed to work only when the shutter button is pressed and not continuously.
> Old or Cheap Lenses: For those who don't want to pay to have stabilization in their lenses or have lenses that don't come with stabilization.
> ...




No feature is a musthave. We could very well shoot with cameras from 2000, but IBIS it wold be a nice feature, besides working with older lenses it would work with 28-70 f2.0. I want "to pay to hae stabilisation" for my lenses but sometimes it's just not possible. Plus it might add to the IS efficiency of the lens.


----------



## keithcooper (Jun 14, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Does Panasonic offer a FF body?


They sure do... See earlier discussion... and this essentially looking at the s1R from the POV of a 5Ds user: Detailed Panasonic S1R camera review


----------



## addola (Jun 14, 2019)

unfocused said:


> We all have to make our own decisions. Mine is that it is not such a useful feature *to me* to compel me to wait for it's implementation before purchasing an R camera.



Of course! But it's good to buy a Canon R camera without IBIS knowing that in the future you can upgrade and use the lenses you bought for it in a body that has IBIS.

Other than that, there's not much I can add to what everyone is saying.


----------



## lightthief (Jun 14, 2019)

Long ago i read someones theory about the effect an IS-system could have: The moving lenses of the IS can, depending on the positions the are, produce cat eyes in the bokeh. I do not know anything about optics, but i think, if that theory is right, IBIS will help here to avoid those cat eyes in the bokeh.

Have a nice day
LT


----------



## scyrene (Jun 14, 2019)

djack41 said:


> Always late to the party. Time for Canon to really get it right.



Cool people don't turn up to parties early.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jun 14, 2019)

scyrene said:


> Cool people don't turn up to parties early.


if you come too late, it might be over....


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 14, 2019)

AF. Nice to have, and if you don't want it, turn it off.
OS. Nice to have, and if you don't want it, turn it off.
Bracketing. Nice to have, and if you don't want it, turn it off.
Flicker detection. Nice to have, and if you don't want it, turn it off.
and so on, and so on, and so on......

What is so different about IBIS? Another tool in the toolbox, and if you don't want it, turn it off.


----------



## amorse (Jun 14, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Yes.
> 
> Unfortunately, it is a sign of the times we live in and the nature of internet boards that many people would rather argue than discuss a topic.
> 
> ...


That really is the challenge - there's competition in the review space for cameras (seems everyone's a youtube reviewer now), and many of the reviews centre on the same topics through drawing inspiration from other reviewers, eventually creating an echo chamber because all the consumers of those reviews are watching many of the review outlets. People end up latching on to whatever feature or issue is raised in those reviews and make it paramount in their minds because it's been reaffirmed by several outlets. All of a sudden any camera without x feature is a failure and will be lambasted - the assumption is that everyone has the same needs and anyone who doesn't see that isn't looking. It becomes an exercise in human psychology more so than a discussion of the merits or downfalls of a feature/advancement.

In that sort of environment, it isn't uncommon for people to forget which features are actually core to their use case - which features are fundamental needs for their use. For me, I always try to focus on which things I use a lot, which things I think would improve my use, and which things I use a little. IBIS is one of those I think would be helpful, but not groundbreaking for my use. I know for me, some of the things I won't skimp on include weather sealing, reasonably good battery performance, ease of access to controls, lenses with filter threads, image quality/low light performance, and reliability (especially in cold weather). If I had to give up any of that for the hot-button issues in reviews (i.e. IBIS, eye-detect, EVFs, zebras, etc.) that's going to be a hard no from me.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Jun 14, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Serious Question: Can someone please explain why they care about IBIS?
> 
> Video: It makes sense if you shoot video, as a lens-based stabilization system is designed to work only when the shutter button is pressed and not continuously.
> Old or Cheap Lenses: For those who don't want to pay to have stabilization in their lenses or have lenses that don't come with stabilization.
> ...



I shoot primarily stills (wedding) and IBIS breathes new life into lens without IS (Canon 24-70 2.8 II, Sigma Art lens, etc) both for video and stills especially if it can works in tandem with lens IS to provide additional IS.

I can handhold a Canon 24-70 II on Panasonic S1 for 2 seconds in places that ban tripods (cathedrals, Disneyland, etc). If you forgot your tripod, it isn't a big deal. Even newer lens like the 85 1.2 RF & 28-70 F2 doesn't have IS.

Like all features coming out with new camera (better EVF, dual card slot, 20 fps, IBIS, eyeAF, high ISO performance), it depends on your style of shoots. Landscape photographer won't care about eyeAF and portrait photographer won't care about 20 FPS if all they do is posed shot.

Since ALL manufacturer has IBIS and eyeAF, I would want feature parity even if I don't utilize it now. I just want the best bang for the buck. If you don't want/need all these new features, you can turn it off or don't upgrade.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 14, 2019)

Since I haven't had IBIS in a DSLR, I have not felt need for it. I find the IS in my lenses to be more than adequate for what I shoot. I walk around taking hand-held pictures with my 100–400mm II, and they look great. I wouldn't reject buying a camera because it had IBIS, but neither would I spend a bunch of extra money to buy one with it. But it is fine with me if other folks want to do that. There are plenty of cameras with it on the market today, and there have been for some years. If it is something I thought essential or even particularly helpful to me, I would have bought one of those by now.


----------



## Durf (Jun 14, 2019)

I never knew how useful 5 axis IBIS actually would be until I bought a Pentax K1 to shoot all my Vintage Lenses with. 
Now I wish all my camera's had 5 axis stabilization. 
It makes a big difference for sure when needing to free hand slower shutter speeds and keeping ISO down.....(and not being as steady as I used to be).


----------



## unfocused (Jun 14, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> AF. Nice to have, and if you don't want it, turn it off.
> OS. Nice to have, and if you don't want it, turn it off.
> Bracketing. Nice to have, and if you don't want it, turn it off.
> Flicker detection. Nice to have, and if you don't want it, turn it off.
> ...



Don, I'm kind of surprised at you. This sort of flippant response seems out of character.

No one is suggesting they don't want IBIS. I certainly never said that. There is world of difference between your suggestion that people can simply "turn off" a feature and having a discussion as to whether or not a feature is so valuable that it warrants rejection of a product because it does not offer that feature.

If you want an analogy, a much better one is dual card slots. Some people feel so strongly about dual card slots that they will reject any camera that does not have two slots. Others see it as a nice feature, but not essential to their purchase decision.

With IBIS, which is a new feature to Canon, a discussion of the pros and cons can help people make their own decisions.

Your response is simplistic and derisive and seems like an attempt to shut down the conversation by suggesting that even asking the question is stupid.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 14, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Don, I'm kind of surprised at you. This sort of flippant response seems out of character.
> 
> No one is suggesting they don't want IBIS. I certainly never said that. There is world of difference between your suggestion that people can simply "turn off" a feature and having a discussion as to whether or not a feature is so valuable that it warrants rejection of a product because it does not offer that feature.
> 
> ...


When I go back and re-read it, it is flippant.

We are at the start of a transition in digital photography. Up to this point cameras tried as best as they could to record what happened on the sensor and we left complex processing until later. IBIS is one of the hallmarks of the move to computational photography. With greatly improved computational power in cameras, we can start to do neat software tricks, the most memorable is sub pixel sensor shifting in order o build up high megapixel images. It also allows one to use a combination of optical and IBIS stabilization to achieve greater levels than either system alone. 

I think that IBIS will become a "must-have" feature in mirrorless Canon cameras. This is NOT a video feature, despite some people's claims, any more than OS is a video feature. I had the opportunity to play with the latest OLY with a combo of OS and IBIS. You can shoot at ridiculously long shutter speeds!

I do not have an R series camera yet, but when they come out with an IBIS one, that's the time when I start paying close attention.


----------



## shutterlag (Jun 14, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Serious Question: Can someone please explain why they care about IBIS?
> 
> Video: It makes sense if you shoot video, as a lens-based stabilization system is designed to work only when the shutter button is pressed and not continuously.
> Old or Cheap Lenses: For those who don't want to pay to have stabilization in their lenses or have lenses that don't come with stabilization.
> ...




Honestly you're missing a lot here...

The E-M1X can do a 10 second exposure hand-held. That may not be important to you, but it sure is useful to many others, esp. if they don't want to carry a tripod. Combine the 12-100mm Oly + E-M1x and it gives you 7.5 stops, and that's not an exaggeration.

You say "Old and Cheap" lenses, like those are the only ones lacking OS, but that is not even remotely the case. Sigma is cranking out Art lenses left and right with no stabilization. The RF 50mm F1.2 is $2100 and has no OS.

You're spot on, for action, IBIS isn't a big thing, because you're already shooting a subject in motion, so you're already forced to a high shutter/ISO. For basically everything else, it matters.


----------



## raptor3x (Jun 14, 2019)

unfocused said:


> What am I missing?



Not too much, it's less useful than gets pushed in general and really shines mostly in edge cases. For your case of shooting sports and BIF it doesn't really help you at all. That said, even images at higher shutter speeds will be sharper with IBIS/OIS than with no stabilization unless you start getting above 1/1000s. One example of a corner case where it can be really useful is when you're shooting indoors with a fast lens in low light but the scene has reasonably high dynamic range. The shot below, for instance, could have been done at a lower shutter speed using a higher ISO setting but you very quickly start to lose either highlights or the shadows start to get too noisy.



This was done with an Olympus E-M1ii and would have been easier to pull off with a FF sensor, but the same general idea applies regardless of format. The other big benefit of IBIS over OIS is that you get rotational stabilization along the optical axis and better correction of translation camera perturbations (although hybrid OIS systems like in the 100L do a good job with that as well). The best case though is still always going to be OIS + IBIS as they work in fairly complementary ways and do a good job of covering each other's weaknesses. Hopefully Canon can make it work so that the OIS + IBIS system works with as many lenses as possible.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 15, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Yes.
> 
> Unfortunately, it is a sign of the times we live in and the nature of internet boards that many people would rather argue than discuss a topic.
> 
> ...


I certainly didn't. But, I've found that my images with my R tend to show more vibration effects than my 5D MK IV. I think that its just the lighter camera with a heavy lens, as well as the adapter causing more imbalance. Thats led me to rethink the need for IS with lenses that are wider like my 24-70L. I use a fast shutter speed and things are fine, but I struggle when light is low and I'm at 1/30 sec where I do fine with my MK IV.

I just purchased a grip for my R, so that may help stabilize the camera, its too soon to tell. A family wedding next week might be a chance to find out.


----------



## kaptainkatsu (Jun 15, 2019)

I primarily want IBIS for video but since the upcoming 15-35 rf has IS, its less of a concern for me. I purchased a 16-35 f4 IS over the 16-35 f2.8 III because of IS. Also having a RF 24-70 f2.8 with IS will be real nice for all of us waiting for IS in that focal length (which honestly I hate that zoom range but I own it because I need it for a lot of work I do.)


----------



## Baron_Karza (Jun 15, 2019)

Watch this video a few seconds before 9:26 and when it gets to that time, you'll instantly see the difference. IS Video Difference I have a number of Canon lenses w/o IS. It would be much more cost effective to get a Canon body with IBIS than to spend extra money on a lens that has IS over a lens that doesn't.


----------



## wyotex43n (Jun 16, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Serious Question: Can someone please explain why they care about IBIS?
> 
> Video: It makes sense if you shoot video, as a lens-based stabilization system is designed to work only when the shutter button is pressed and not continuously.
> Old or Cheap Lenses: For those who don't want to pay to have stabilization in their lenses or have lenses that don't come with stabilization.
> ...


This is not to be snarky but here is a good reason. *RF 28–70mm F2 L USM. *


----------



## keithcooper (Jun 16, 2019)

Whilst I can appreciate the "I don't need it, so it's no big deal" replies -_ I feel the same about video (especially 4k)_ - most of the responses seem to concentrate on the usefulness of IS for non-IS lenses, which is what I'd assumed would be the big feature when I had the Panasonic S1R for a few weeks.

It turned out the sensor IS was indeed very nice for all kinds of shots that I might have taken hand held, so yes please if done well. However for most of my paid work I'm using a tripod and the real eye opener was the quality you could get from a 35mm sensor at 187MP. A Canon 75MP EOS R with multi-shot would give ~300MP shots.

Now that's going to fall into the "who needs it" category for many ;-)

_Note: If it does appear, expect Canon to go really big on promoting it, and some forums to be filled with comments bemoaning the need for a new computer, more disks, more cards etc. Oh, and lots of ill-informed armchair expertise about 'out-resolving lenses' and similar things - just like they have been since digital started to take off ;-) ;-)_


----------



## Kit. (Jun 16, 2019)

keithcooper said:


> _Note: If it does appear,_


There could be some patent-related hurdles, though.


----------



## Photo Hack (Jun 16, 2019)

unfocused said:


> So many responses that missed the point of my question -- which was not about the benefits of stabilization, but the benefit of in-body versus in-lens.
> 
> *Photo Hack:* Your response is not clear.Maybe you are referring to the feature that Stevelee references.



Lens IS does, in fact, work for video and not just still photography. Here's a clue - your shutter release has nothing to do with activating stabilization. For stills, I use the AF-ON button for focusing and when I press that button, stabilization begins. It also will continue stabilizing if I am holding it down in AI Servo. 

Hand hold a camera while shooting video and see the difference when you flip IS on or off. You'll also notice many lenses will have different IS modes or settings. There's a reason for this as there's more than one way IS can stabilize and they're meant for different video or photographic purposes.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 17, 2019)

djack41 said:


> Always late to the party.


Absolutely not true.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 17, 2019)

There’s a party going on?


----------



## Pape (Jun 17, 2019)

hey they just joined mirrorless race half year ago . If M cameras isnt counted


----------



## Photo Hack (Jun 17, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Absolutely not true.


Meanwhile, Canon is having a party that the others will probably NEVER join. I’m sure everyone can come up with a nice list of exclusive things only Canon has over their competition. 

Late to the party comments seem a little short sighted when you see innovation firsts from Canon spanning decades.....especially when you consider the unstable and bug ridden products that have been pushing the limits and gathering a cult following of fan boys. 

Shortsighted and unreliable innovation isn’t exactly Canons game.


----------



## Photo Hack (Jun 17, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> Meanwhile, Canon is having a party that the others will probably NEVER join. I’m sure everyone can come up with a nice list of exclusive things only Canon has over their competition.
> 
> Late to the party comments seem a little short sighted when you see innovation firsts from Canon spanning decades.....especially when you consider the unstable and bug ridden products that have been pushing the limits and gathering a cult following of fan boys.
> 
> Shortsighted and unreliable innovation isn’t exactly Canons game.


That’s also not to discount the fact Nikon and Canon are late to FF mirrorless. I don’t work at Canon and don’t have any insider info, but I’m willing to guess both had been working on it for a while but never took Sony seriously, or anticipated what they were capable of doing....maybe they were disconnected from the market as well? 

It’s like having a civilized feud between two big families for years and a roudy, break the rules, family moves in and decides they’re going to take any risk to get on top...even at the cost of long term gain.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 17, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> That’s also not to discount the fact Nikon and Canon are late to FF mirrorless. I don’t work at Canon and don’t have any insider info, but I’m willing to guess both had been working on it for a while but never took Sony seriously, or anticipated what they were capable of doing....maybe they were disconnected from the market as well?
> 
> It’s like having a civilized feud between two big families for years and a roudy, break the rules, family moves in and decides they’re going to take any risk to get on top...even at the cost of long term gain.


Well, late is subjective. One company doing something doesn't mean another is immediately obligated to make such a product. Personally, I think it is best Canon makes/made sure that they have a reliable product and not rush some bug filled contraption to market. It doesn't seem their entry date into the market has hurt Canon. Just as you say above, there are plenty of things Canon has developed that Sony hasn't touched yet. Neither has Nikon. That's just the way things work. Sony is late to the FF mirrorless DPAF market.  _That was a tongue in cheek remark_


----------



## unfocused (Jun 17, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> ...I don’t work at Canon and don’t have any insider info, but I’m willing to guess both had been working on it for a while but never took Sony seriously, or anticipated what they were capable of doing...



I can't imagine that Canon did not take Sony seriously or did not anticipate what they were capable of. It looks to me like Canon was assessing the market to determine the best strategy and timing. Based on the gains in market share that Canon has captured since their entry into mirrorless, their strategy seems to be working.


----------



## uri.raz (Jun 18, 2019)

rjbray01 said:


> Whilst this is possible with stabilized lenses they are generally more expensive and generally it seems primes are unstabilized - whether thy be from Canon or anyone else.



Canon has primes w/ IS for all focal lengths except 14mm, 20mm, 50mm, and 135mm, and Tamron has a 45mm prime with VC. Granted, the 85mm f/1.4L IS & 100mm f/2.8L IS are expensive, and the 100mm isn't fast (for a prime).

[My bet is the 14mm & 20mm primes didn't get IS due to being wide, and the later due to lack of popularity.]


----------



## BillB (Jun 18, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> The real question is: even with 20/20 hindsight, did Canon lose profits from their MILFF strategy so far? It's not clear to me that even being first to the MILFF party would have made Canon more money. Sony's market share of MILFF is very impressive, but in terms of actual units sold it's not huge, and they've had to pay R&D for a pretty extensive product line to even achieve that.
> 
> I figured out that MILFF was the future way back in 2001, so I bet Canon's known it since 1995.
> 
> While there are lots of first-mover advantages, there are also second-mover advantages. For a start, Canon doesn't need to educate anyone on the idea that MILFF is a good thing, because Sony's already paid the cost of making that case to the consumer. Now that's Sony's taken the expense of making the case, Canon can free-ride on the resulting demand.


One big question is how well the decision to develop dual pixel technology is playing out for Canon. Canon's entry into mirrorless has been based on the dual pixel technology, and I think that explains much of the timing of Canon's entry into mirrorless. A late mover strategy seems to have played out pretty well for Canon with the M cameras. A big question with the R cameras seems to be what the next generation of Canon FF sensors will look like (and when they will show up). Then there is the question of lenses and what role EF lenses will play, especially while there are still DSLR's around.


----------



## BillB (Jun 18, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> Canon has primes w/ IS for all focal lengths except 14mm, 20mm, 50mm, and 135mm, and Tamron has a 45mm prime with VC. Granted, the 85mm f/1.4L IS & 100mm f/2.8L IS are expensive, and the 100mm isn't fast (for a prime).
> 
> [My bet is the 14mm & 20mm primes didn't get IS due to being wide, and the later due to lack of popularity.]


I wonder what percentage of all of Canon's lens sales are stabilized zooms in the holy trinity of 16-35, 24-70 or 24-105 and 70-200. The 16-35 and 24-70 f2.8's are not stabilized in this range, but everything else is. There are quite a few unstabilized primes, but I don't know what they add up to in sales. The big Amazon numbers for primes are the ancient cheaper 50's and the 85 f1.8.


----------



## MEAllred (Jun 18, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Serious Question: Can someone please explain why they care about IBIS?
> 
> Video: It makes sense if you shoot video, as a lens-based stabilization system is designed to work only when the shutter button is pressed and not continuously.
> Old or Cheap Lenses: For those who don't want to pay to have stabilization in their lenses or have lenses that don't come with stabilization.
> ...


You're missing the fact that none of the "premium" RF lenses released to date are stabilized. What's your solution here???


----------



## BillB (Jun 18, 2019)

MEAllred said:


> You're missing the fact that none of the "premium" RF lenses released to date are stabilized. What's your solution here???


Tripod?


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 18, 2019)

I wonder how well it would work on long exposures (many seconds or minutes), and how well it would work through an ND filter.... I can see it being a great benefit to still shooting under normal conditions, but when you step off the beaten path I can see it not working so well. (I like functions you can disable)

For video, I see pixel shifting as a better way to stabilize the shot..... and we already have that in several of the latest Canon bodies.


----------



## Pape (Jun 19, 2019)

MEAllred said:


> You're missing the fact that none of the "premium" RF lenses released to date are stabilized. What's your solution here???


To use cheaper f2 f2,8 lenses what usually got IS ,let studio photographers and daylight artists have their uncompromiced top lenses.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 19, 2019)

MEAllred said:


> You're missing the fact that none of the "premium" RF lenses released to date are stabilized. What's your solution here???


The same solutions people had before IS.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 19, 2019)

MEAllred said:


> You're missing the fact that none of the "premium" RF lenses released to date are stabilized. What's your solution here???


Well...others have answered your question...but let me add.

The existence of non-stabilized lenses is an argument in favor of stabilization generally, but not an argument in favor of in-body stabilization over in-lens stabilization.

Also, your sample size is so small it is not valid. So far, Canon has announced a grand total of 10 RF lenses. Six of those lenses have IS. One of those includes the IS 24-70 f2.8 zoom, a lens not available with IS in EF mount (from Canon).

Honestly, I've grown a bit tired of this discussion. Several people have raised legitimate benefits, others have completely missed the point. I have the information I needed to make an informed decision. I think others probably do too by now.


----------



## Juangrande (Jun 21, 2019)

keithcooper said:


> I don't -need- it, but recent experience makes it something I'd like to see
> 
> It adds IS to my non IS lenses as an option - that's my expensive TS-E ones mainly
> It gives the possibility of multi-shot high res imaging (see my earlier post and link)
> ...





keithcooper said:


> I don't -need- it, but recent experience makes it something I'd like to see
> 
> It adds IS to my non IS lenses as an option - that's my expensive TS-E ones mainly
> It gives the possibility of multi-shot high res imaging (see my earlier post and link)
> ...


I can’t imagine using a tilt shift lens without a tripod, unless maybe for creative portraits/fashion, but then I’d probably still put it on a tripod.


----------



## keithcooper (Jun 21, 2019)

TS-E lenses work just as well hand held or on a tripod ;-) 

You just need to practice rather more, but once you get the hang of it, being able to add a bit of shift gives extra flexibility (I don't actually use tilt very often - then mainly for technical purposes).

My 24/17 TS-E lenses are my walk round preferences for cities and landscape, both of which are times I'm unlikely to have a tripod with me


----------



## Terry Danks (Jun 27, 2019)

SV said:


> "We expect to see Canon’s IBIS technology to arrive in the next major EOS R series camera. "
> 
> Let's hope so, and soon!!


Many posts here are redolent of the period when Canon first introduced IS. I recall one forum poster who declared they'd never accept "wobbly bits" in their lenses! Another who said Nikon would never go beyond their first VR lens (a 100-400 IIRC?), years after Canon had IS across their entire "super" tele line.
I actually dumped all my Nikon gear, including the 800mm f/5.6 in order to get the Canon 600/4 IS when it was introduced. To my purpose, no feature was more essential than IS. I still feel that way. What has changed is that Canon is no longer a leader. While my 600/4 is gone, I still have the 300/2.8 IS. 
IBIS is where it's at for me. I have been teetering on getting into Sony because of their mirrorless/IBIS bodies. Not sure I can wait for Canon. They're awfully slow to catch up. So different from how it was 15 years ago.  Make no mistake! People are hesitating to buy Canon bodies precisely because they lack IBIS!


----------

