Why Canon (and Nikon) use in-lens stabilization · Aug 30, 11:01 PM by Simon Mackie
From a Canon white paper on the new 400D:
Some of Canon’s competitors have chosen to use in-body image stabilization. The technique involves moving the image sensor in a controlled fashion, based on signals from movement detecting sensors in the camera body. The obvious advantage of this system is that users have some sort of stabilization available with almost any lens they connect to the body. Short focal length lenses require smaller sensor deflections; 24 or 28 mm lenses might need only 1 mm or so. Longer lenses necessitate much greater movement; 300 mm lenses would have to move the sensor about 5.5 mm (nearly 1/4”) to achieve the correction Canon gets with its IS system at the same focal length. This degree of sensor movement is beyond the range of current technology. Short and “normal” focal length lenses need stabilization much less often than long lenses, so the lenses that need the most help get the least. Further, in cameras with smaller than full-frame, 35 mm film size sensors, equivalent focal lengths become longer, by a factor of 1.5 or 1.6, exacerbating the problem by making all lenses longer.
To be honest, I always thought the reason why Canon and Nikon chose not to have image stabilization (IS on Canon lenses, VR on Nikon) in their camera bodies was for reasons of profit – each image stabilized lens is much more expensive than than its standard counterpart. However, it seems this is not the case – the image stabilization system in in a camera body (such as that used on the old Konica Minolta and now Sony Alpha DSLRs) cannot deal with the amount of stabilization needed at long focal lengths, and is therefore less effective than that used in-lens. This makes sense – if you’ve used a long lens with image stabilization, you can hear and feel the system working a lot harder than on a shorter lens. So, if you’re likely to be shooting with long lenses and need image stabilization, Canon and Nikon are still the brands to stick with.
commenting closed for this article