P&S IS vs. Lens IS

[delhi]

I am seeing more and more IS being incorporated into P&S cameras these days and I am wondering how can Canon put in IS on a $200 camera but the premium for IS in an otherwise non IS lens can be an increase or $500? ex. 70-200 f4L and it's IS version.
I like to know what are the technological difference. I am sure there are....

[cdifoto]

This is similar mentality to:

Random person in park: Hey what camera is that?
Photographer: Canon 1D.
Random person in park: Cool. How many megapickles does it have?
Photographer: 4
Random person in park: Oh. That sucks. Mine's a Sony P&S.
Photographer: Cool.
Random person in park: It's way better than yours. It has 8 megapickles AND fits in my pocket.

*Random person skips away happy & ignorant.*

[Moppie]

*Random person skips away happy & ignorant.*


I'd be happy if I could fit 8 mega pixels in my pocket. :p



delhi
Its actualy a good question, Canon uses the same technology for IS in their compacts as they do in their EF mount lenses so it would make sense there would a similar pricing relationship.

Why that relationship doesn't seem to be consistent can only be answered by guessing since none of us work for Canon, and they keep such information very secret.

I'll offer a few ideas though:
The compacts are smaller, and less complex, so cheaper to manufacture.
They are sold in much larger numbers, so can sold with a lower margin on each unit.
Canons IS system has paid for itself several times over already so there is no need to charge extra when its used in compacts, but it makes for a nice excuse to charge more on an EF mount lens.

[DocFrankenstein]

I am seeing more and more IS being incorporated into P&S cameras these days and I am wondering how can Canon put in IS on a $200 camera but the premium for IS in an otherwise non IS lens can be an increase or $500? ex. 70-200 f4L and it's IS version.
I like to know what are the technological difference. I am sure there are....
The main technological difference is that you're willing to pay for it.

Oh, wait... that's economic. Sorry.

[JeffreyG]

The main technological difference is that you're willing to pay for it.

Oh, wait... that's economic. Sorry.

Bingo, Nikanon know that people buying dSLRs are enthusiasts who will pay exorbitantly higher prices for incrementally better performance.

Typical P&S customer:
"Hmmmm this Canon is 12 megapixels and has IS for $215 but this Sony is 12.1 megapizels with IS for $209.....I guess I'll get the Sony because it has 0.1 more megapixels and it is $6 less"

[Binning]

Canon started to address this question in their advertising with regard to Lens IS vs. camera IS. Their argument basically boils down to the lens IS is more effective because of the variety of lenses. A P&S has one lens, so it doesn't matter whether it is camera IS or lens IS, it's all integrated. Canon makes their case that each lens is unique and to optimize IS it must be lens specific to get the most effective result.

I'm not a scientist so I can't speak with any authority on the issue. But I think the markets work, and if Nikon were to come out with an effective camera IS for a DSLR Canon would be soon to follow. I don't know that Sony is viewed in the same league among the professional community, but many of the comments are right about general consumers. For them, Sony is a quality brand.

[_aravena]

^Sickening but yes. I have managed to change many a buyer's mind though to Canon or that cheap colorful Samsung.

[Longwatcher]

Acknowledged that the technology is fully developed, however the application differs.

How big is the lens or sensor on a P&S? Now how big is the lens on a 35mm lens (especially say a 70-200/f2.8L IS? Remember at least one the lens elements has to be moved very rapidly to make the IS work.

Second, I expect a P&S to last 2-3 years under harsh conditions, 5-10 years under good conditions, I expect a Canon "L" lens to last decades under both and it must be repairable, a P&S is throw away technology.

And then finally yes, we get took for a bit because they can, but it is not probably a deliberate factor, more of a overall percentage of the cost of the lens thing.

[DocFrankenstein]

Acknowledged that the technology is fully developed, however the application differs.

How big is the lens or sensor on a P&S? Now how big is the lens on a 35mm lens (especially say a 70-200/f2.8L IS? Remember at least one the lens elements has to be moved very rapidly to make the IS work.

Second, I expect a P&S to last 2-3 years under harsh conditions, 5-10 years under good conditions, I expect a Canon "L" lens to last decades under both and it must be repairable, a P&S is throw away technology.

And then finally yes, we get took for a bit because they can, but it is not probably a deliberate factor, more of a overall percentage of the cost of the lens thing.
That's an interesting speculation, but the 70-200 L IS is actually a throwaway piece of equipment. The whole IS module is getting replaced in case of failure and it costs about 150 bucks.

Also - bigger doesn't necessarily translates to cheaper either. For a small item, the tolerances must be higher and the parts smaller which makes finishing and assembly more difficult.