Rubbish, there is EF-S lenes with IS, hardly Pro.

IS has been better in lens only because it has not been as well developed in
camera yet. The Minoltas were marketed particularly poorly and the IS system
is not as good as it could be, not sure that they have done much to improve
it in the A100. If Pentax has got it right and they are claiming 2-4 stops
depending on the conditions and includes working when panning then Canon and
Nikon will have to rethink their position and what they offer in their
"entry level" cameras and that may well include all their APS-C based
cameras. To be honest with you IS has not been a particularly compelling
want for me but when the choice is to have it basicly on every lens at no
cost then I will take it, I can always turn in off. Remember also that
Pentax also (apparently) have a 12MP Pro camera in the wings.

Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:

Problem is, the cheap 70-300 is the same kind of lens others are now
selling as second "kit" lenses.  Sure they are poor optically, but they
sell for under $200, something you can't do if you have onboard I.S.
Even Canon has the EF 75-300III,
Nikon the 70-300G.  If I'm Sony and can do I.S. (and every entry-level
buyer can relate to blurred shots from their film days) I've got an
edge with onboard I.S.

IS is not ment for entry-level buyers. But for next generation ones. For
entry level, there are 100 and 200 USD lenses, while same with IS are ment
for next level people. AS simple as that. Do you really expect that they
will loose their option to earn extra money by transferring IS into camera?
Man, you ARE naive...doing that will make them loose millions. MAny people
first buy normal lens, but after a while they buy a second, IS lens. That's
two lenses sold instead of one if IS will be in the body.

Not to mention that in lens IS is better than in body one. Simple---in lens
IS doesn't need to move so much as in body one.

Rich, how can you compare the EF 70-300mm IS to a low-end lens like
the EF 75-300 III? The EF 70-300mm IS is a nice lens that is afforably
priced. It isn't my choice of lens in that length and price rang, I
would go with the EF 70-200mm f/4L USM, because I'd rather have
quieter focusing and front element that does not rotate than IS and
the extra length.

On the other hand, the EF 75-300 III is exactly what you would expect
from a lens that sells for ~$150. All I can say nice about it is that
it's light, cheap and uses a 58mm filter. It is a mediocre lens that
will not benefit from IS, in-camera or otherwise.  

Canon and Nikon may offer in-camera IS at some time. Whether this is
the "next major change" or if pressure Sony or Pentax forces the issue
remains to be seen.

I doubt it will be THE feature that drives the entry level buying
decision, not as long as folks are counting megapixels. I would be
very suprised if it was a big deal for the advanced amateur or
professional; especially ones with an investment in Canon or Nikon
gear.

TR

I really don't think that will become relevant...but if it ever does,
there's a really high-tech thingy on the side of all IS lenses called the
"On/Off" switch.

Even if it came to that for some reason, there shouldn't be a
conflict...because the lens handles IS completely independant of the image
cast by the lens into the body.  If anything, a body-based IS would take
care of remaining movement the lens couldn't zap.

Canon has that, but it's still optically-based (in the lens)...not
sensor-based.

I agree with that last part.  -That they'll not only avoid it, but also that
in-lens IS just makes more sense.

-Mark²