Why no in body image stabilization?

if you want options that canon doesn't offer vote with your wallet.

JeffreyG wrote in post #16243550
Canon was first to market with IS over 15 years ago, ...

I though Nikon was first to market with the 700VR. Canon came out a year later first in the DSLR market.

ed rader wrote in post #16244275
if you want options that canon doesn't offer vote with your wallet.

It's probably better to complain. Cant see myself switching camps due to lenses, but I can definitely complain!

JeffreyG wrote in post #16243550
That said, you can also see that IS in the lens kind of sucks for the consumer since you have to purchase IS with every lens. Add in the fact that Canon charges a forture for IS even though the feature cannot possibly cost so much to make (else....how does the EF-S 18-55 IS not cost $1000?), and you get some frustration.

R&D costs for IS are not just in electronic/mechanical areas; there are additional R&D IS costs with each lens, in part because the optical design step becomes substantially more complicated when IS is included (many more degrees of freedom to consider - like, which lens elements to move, how far to shift/incline; many more rays to trace for each merit function evaluation).

tkbslc wrote in post #16244247
Isn't that kind of like saying that tiny disc brakes for a 13" wheel for a Toyota Echo and the disc for 20" wheels on a Porsche should cost about the same to produce? I mean they are both just disc brakes.

I am sure there is plenty of profit built in, yes, but they aren't the same.

As an engineer in that kind of business I would describe those two brake systems as pretty much the same. The bigger Porsche one might cost 2 or 3 times as much based on size, but that's the only difference.

When Canon adds IS to a lens and still offers a non IS version, they charge about 500 bucks for it. If that charge was based on actual cost of manufacture, it would imply that the IS in a lens like the 70-200/2.8 costs 20 to 30 times as much as the IS unit in the 18-55. That's not plausible.

The clear implication is that IS in a lens like the 18-55 probably costs less than 20 bucks to make, and the one in the 70-200 might cost as much as 50 bucks to make. To me that is in the same range, and it is pretty clear that Canon IS costs and Canon IS pricing are pretty much unrelated.

You guys don't think an IS unit in any of the Canon medium telephotos actually costs anywhere near the 500 bucks Canon charges for it, do you?

apersson850 wrote in post #16243864
When Canon first implemented stabilization in their lenses, the main image sensor was still chemical film, not digital sensors. The film doesn't lend itself to moving around as well as the sensor.

Back then, Sony made Walkman players and stuff.

Come on now. This is misleading. Sony bought Minolta's camera division and Minolta was already making bodies with IS built in. Also, whatever Sony made at that time was of very good quality, including the Walkman.

I think the IS on the lens becomes an issue with EF lenses as most EF-S lenses made these days have IS built in.

JeffreyG wrote in post #16244498
You guys don't think an IS unit in any of the Canon medium telephotos actually costs anywhere near the 500 bucks Canon charges for it, do you?

I never implied that. There is plenty of markup on all this stuff. I just reject the implication that Canon has a standard $10 IS unit they can cram in any lens at will.

Even if they did, it would ignore the lens redesign required to create a new optical path capable of utilizing the IS unit.

Charlie wrote in post #16243831
Not sure where you got this info from, but are you saying that consumer stuff like the sx50 with 1200mm equivalent won't be stable till fired? Sounds very hard to believe.

With an electronic VF like the sx50, the VF is also stabilized (I have one). I don't think you could easily stabilize an optical VF, though.

amfoto1 wrote in post #16244232
Today there are basically two ways to implement IS:
1. In the lens, by moving a group of elements to compensate for movement
2. In the camera, by moving the image sensor to compensate for movement

Now, think about it.... Canon began implementing IS in 1996. There were no DSLRs in 1996! Or at least there were very few, and those were extremely expensive. Most of us were shooting film with our SLRs in 1996. And there is no way to move film around to compensate for movement. So Canon, being the first to implement stabilization on their SLRs, really didn't have much choice but to put it in their lenses, rather than in the cameras of that time.

...

That point about film bodies is probably the best reason of all.

archer1960 wrote in post #16244555
With an electronic VF like the sx50, the VF is also stabilized (I have one). I don't think you could easily stabilize an optical VF, though.

you've got a point! I could live with the known problems and/or use live view/evf.

JeffreyG wrote in post #16243890
I'm pretty sure Canon has completely recouped the development cost of IS, since they launched it in 1996. The incremental cost of IS today is what it costs to make. And the incremental price of IS today is nearly all profit.

And no, the system in a 300/4 is not totally different. Same principle, same basic design. The L prime might have bigger and more robust bits....so if the 18-55 IS unit costs 15 bucks to make then the one in the 300/4 could be as much as 50 bucks. I make a lot of mechatronic systems and I know these IS units are not huge cost drivers. That's why Canon basically gives IS away on the entry level kit lenses in order to compete with the in-body IS from other systems. Then once you are an EOS user, they can charge you 500 bucks for IS on your L lenses.

Aperrson has it right, Canon put it in the lens because of film, and they have kept it there because of the market position of IS in their lens line and profitability. By giving IS away on the 18-55 and 55-250 they remain competitive where it counts, with new system buyers.

Great. Sounds easy. Why don't you just make your own Canon compatible camera body with built in IS and compete with them?

You should be able to sell it a lot cheaper.

Charlie wrote in post #16244163
high ISO abilities does not really compensate for IS, it just makes it a smaller issue for some people. Higher ISO is still a penalty you pay for.

you can use support systems to minimize shake, but not really feasible in a lot of scenarios.

No amount of IS will stop subject motion blur.

Only the higher cleaner ISO technologies that you are seeing continue to evolve today that allows you to shoot at faster shutter speeds will do that....

I thought since the image is arriving stabilized to the mirror it would help with metering and auto focusing.

shooter00 wrote in post #16244621
No amount of IS will stop subject motion blur.

Only the higher cleaner ISO technologies that you are seeing continue to evolve today that allows you to shoot at faster shutter speeds will do that....

Gonna have to wait for the next iteration of photoshop. The latest already has camera motion reduction so the next should be subject motion blur reduction.

stpix wrote in post #16244575
Great. Sounds easy. Why don't you just make your own Canon compatible camera body with built in IS and compete with them?

You should be able to sell it a lot cheaper.

Are you offended on behalf on Canon or something?

All I am pointing out is that in lens IS has some negatives, and the best system of all would be one where Camera bodies had it, and long telephoto lenses also had it.

My second point is that Canon could probably do this for a low incremental cost, but they are not likely to do so because it would be disruptive to their lens marketing and profit strategy. Selling lens IS as a feature is probably quite profitable for Canon. And since their low end lenses usually all have IS, the lack of body IS is probably not costing them sales to introductory consumers. This situation explains the status quo.

I personally would love body IS in my EOS bodies, but I understand why Canon has not done this. You don't have to jump in and save the company's honor from my grievous attack.