They work together and give you a super stabilization. TRy 100-400 Sony with A7III or A7RIII - it's like black magic in your hands
Thanks Alex for the clarification. I am sure I would love that combo - not sure my bank balance would though:) I do love my Canon 100-400 II so if it is even better than that it would be out of this world
Curious - is the IBIS better than the IS built into a lens? If you have IBIS do you need to turn off IS on the lens or do they work in unison?
Obviously IBIS is good for lenses that have no IS but I was just curious how much it adds to those lenses with IS?
Sorry if a dumb question :)
What Alex said, and to elaborate, there are things that IBIS cannot do, like multi-axis stabilization as found in the Canon EF 100mm F2.8 L IS Macro. IBIS is great to provide IS where there is no IS in the lens, and also great to augment IS in the lens.
I do suspect that IBIS did not make it into this body due to the target price point. Were this a $3200 body, I think that's another story. Then you'd expect not only IBIS but dual card slots, a higher video specification, higher throughput (either higther resolution or higher frame rate), etcetera.
What Alex said, and to elaborate, there are things that IBIS cannot do, like multi-axis stabilization as found in the Canon EF 100mm F2.8 L IS Macro. IBIS is great to provide IS where there is no IS in the lens, and also great to augment IS in the lens.
I do suspect that IBIS did not make it into this body due to the target price point. Were this a $3200 body, I think that's another story. Then you'd expect not only IBIS but dual card slots, a higher video specification, higher throughput (either higther resolution or higher frame rate), etcetera.
Thanks Paul. Perhaps the pro version that is due next year will have all those extra features plus a nice big price tag to match.
Looked over the announcement, now *very* interested to see the first real tests of this thing.
I have a relative who works for Canon and is currently in Hawaii for the introduction of this camera. I can probably get direct answers to any questions.
Shannon,
I'm PM-ing you this question as well:
Section 13.1 of the Canon R White Paper describes an enhanced IS system, whereby lens-based IS is enhanced by electronic stabilization using sensor data. If there is no IS system in the lens, I'm wondering if the electronic stabilization in the body still functions, or not?
Shannon,
I'm PM-ing you this question as well:
Section 13.1 of the Canon R White Paper describes an enhanced IS system, whereby lens-based IS is enhanced by electronic stabilization using sensor data. If there is no IS system in the lens, I'm wondering if the electronic stabilization in the body still functions, or not?
If there's no IBIS (so the sensor is not actually moving inside the body) I'm quite sure it shouldn't work, or at least it would be a digital "fake" stabilization
Shannon,
I'm PM-ing you this question as well:
Section 13.1 of the Canon R White Paper describes an enhanced IS system, whereby lens-based IS is enhanced by electronic stabilization using sensor data. If there is no IS system in the lens, I'm wondering if the electronic stabilization in the body still functions, or not?
If there's no IBIS (so the sensor is not actually moving inside the body) I'm quite sure it shouldn't work, or at least it would be a digital "fake" stabilization
Alex, based on info from Shannon's source, that's correct. The "IBIS" applies to video only.
At least filmmakers have no reasons to switch to this crippled camera (if you search for the words "Canon" and "crippled" on Google over the last 4 years you will find dozens of posts/articles)
That much is certainly true. This camera is obviously not marketed to them. That may not be true of a future offering, and I would suggest that certain features of the RF lens system make it pretty clear that Canon will offer a more capable video machine in the RF world. Denigrating this as a "crippled" camera is a little inaccurate, I would say. It's a well-spec'd stills camera with basic video capabilities. Canon obviously mad trade-offs to keep the price down, and probably was constrained by technical considerations in some respects, e.g. readout speed, in which they in fact do lag the leader (Sony).
IMO is intentionally crippled. The 4 years old A7RII has better video specs. And Canon has an old tradition about video cameras so IMO that word perfectly shows Canon approach to new devices. If I were a Canon user I would be very very disappointed :)
That much is certainly true. This camera is obviously not marketed to them. That may not be true of a future offering, and I would suggest that certain features of the RF lens system make it pretty clear that Canon will offer a more capable video machine in the RF world. Denigrating this as a "crippled" camera is a little inaccurate, I would say. It's a well-spec'd stills camera with basic video capabilities. Canon obviously mad trade-offs to keep the price down, and probably was constrained by technical considerations in some respects, e.g. readout speed, in which they in fact do lag the leader (Sony).
IMO is intentionally crippled. The 4 years old A7RII has better video specs. And Canon has an old tradition about video cameras so IMO that word perfectly shows Canon approach to new devices. If I were a Canon user I would be very very disappointed :)
Alex, I think we agree in principle, just our outlook is different. I agree that it is crippled, but I disagree that a camera with the still specs that they have put together *plus* high-end video specs (including uncropped 4K, which would demand mechanical in-body IBIS) would be possible in a camera priced at this point. In the end, it's Canon's choice, and I for one am not disappointed, though I won't be buying this camera (waiting to see what the higher-spec version brings, probably out in early 2019). I think that Canon's choices will in fact be vindicated in the long run. They have made the correct choices as far as the lens mount, and the outlook for great glass in the RF world is fantastic. That plus the well-thought-out adapter for EF>>RF (including the drop-in filter which now makes it possible to use a rear filter with *any* EF lens) is going to please a lot of stills photographers. Hardcore videographers, look elsewhere.
there's a big chance this will be my next camera soon :)
Same batteries I'm using on the 70D, same lenses, articulating screen.
Only need the body and adapter ring. Hopefully there's going to be a launching promo here in TW.
My 70D is at the end of it's life... (130,000 shutter counts).
...What would be the advantages to go Sony? Thoughts?
Here is a nice tabular feature comparison with the A7 III and A7R III. As you can see there are plusses and minuses on both sides. I will say this: I greatly prefer Canon's color science and Canon's "minimal processing" approach to RAW. You will find that Sony (and Nikon, BTW) do a lot of processing to their RAW data. Example would be clipping the bottom end to reduce the appearance of noise.
...What would be the advantages to go Sony? Thoughts?
Here is a nice tabular feature comparison with the A7 III and A7R III. As you can see there are plusses and minuses on both sides. I will say this: I greatly prefer Canon's color science and Canon's "minimal processing" approach to RAW. You will find that Sony (and Nikon, BTW) do a lot of processing to their RAW data. Example would be clipping the bottom end to reduce the appearance of noise.
there's a big chance this will be my next camera soon :)
Same batteries I'm using on the 70D, same lenses, articulating screen.
Only need the body and adapter ring. Hopefully there's going to be a launching promo here in TW.
My 70D is at the end of it's life... (130,000 shutter counts).
You may need those batteries as it looks like it takes 370 shots per battery as opposed to the 920 on the 70D but this sure wouldn't put me off.
The comparison table kirbic posted was a really useful comparison.
...What would be the advantages to go Sony? Thoughts?
Here is a nice tabular feature comparison with the A7 III and A7R III. As you can see there are plusses and minuses on both sides. I will say this: I greatly prefer Canon's color science and Canon's "minimal processing" approach to RAW. You will find that Sony (and Nikon, BTW) do a lot of processing to their RAW data. Example would be clipping the bottom end to reduce the appearance of noise.
I watched Kai W's review on youtube, I thought that customizable ring on the new lenses was pretty cool.
Indeed it is. I would see myself setting it to control aperture most often, since I often shoot in Av mode. It is interesting to note that *all* of the new RF lenses will be focus-by-wire. Not everyone is going to like that. I do hope that Canon has really nailed the ability to get fine control, and that there is good tactile feedback on the ring. if so, the focus-by-wire is, IMO, not a concern.
One other cool (literally) feature of the RF lenses is the aperture behavior. Upon power-down, the aperture closes to near the smallest setting. This helps to protect the shutter blades and image sensor from damage from high-intensity light.
I shot with Canon for since the 70's and I slowly made the shift to Sony starting with the A7r (now have the A7rIII) and I can't see me going back, ever. I'm tired of Canons limiting their bodies features so much and being slow to bring out new tech. & bodies + plus Sony GM glass in the most amazing glass I've ever shot. That being said, I'm glad both Canon and Nikon are in the race now for real, since I think the photographer wins in that scenario.
