stpix wrote in post #16245418
I am sorry but that is BS. Canon cameras and lenses are optical instruments and experience with ductile iron casting and disc brakes is totally unrelated.
The word I used was 'mechatronics', which is relevant. The part within the lens that makes IS work is a small electronic device that is a combination of electronic system and mechanical actuators. I do indeed have a lot of experience with these types of systems.
It is arrogant and silly to presume to tell Canon how they should engineer their cameras unless you know as much about as they do.
That's ridiculous. I have a very good idea what I and probably a lot of other people want in a camera. I can study the systems on the market and get a good idea of what is possible, what the design tradeoffs are and what system costs might be.
We are talking about hypotheticals here, but again.....what the heck are you so wound up about anyway?
Sony offers dSLRs with IS in the body. Canon and Nikon offer systems where the IS in in the lens. I can look at these systems and conclude that from the standpoint of the user, the best offering would be to have both. The lens IS would perform better when it is offerered, but in-camera IS beats no IS when using lenses that don't have the feature. Lenses like most Canon shorter primes, or adapted MF lenses.
The OP also asked why Canon has not gone for body IS. I think a lot of their decision is based on marketing strategy which I have supported with some concepts. All I see from you is "you are dumb, Canon knows all." So what is your theory if I have no idea, and how does it relate to the discussion at hand?
I mean - my suggestion is that IS is generally low cost, and one driver for Canon to stick with lens IS is that they can sell certain IS equipped high end lenses for more money, achieving a high profit. This profit margin on lens IS is a good reason for them to eschew offering body IS.
Your theory is that lens IS is really, really expensive to make.....so Canon loses money on it, and they won't offer body IS because they like to lose money? Or what? What is your point actually? Can you articulate how your insistence that lens IS must be really expensive to make is a strong driver for Canon corporate decision to not offer in-body IS?