Why no in body image stabilization?

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.

A strange image flashed through my head for a second : individual sheets of 24x36mm film in their own film holders, just so you could have a mechanism small enough to move the film around as an in-body IS system
(Those who have used sheet film will understand better)

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....

There's one in every crowd
That's why it's called "image" stabilization and not "subject" stabilization...

Another disadvantage to IS-equipped lenses; they're more prone to decentering.

AJSJones wrote in post #16244717
There's one in every crowd
That's why it's called "image" stabilization and not "subject" stabilization...

It's a dirty job but somebody has to do it....

shooter00 wrote in post #16244748
It's a dirty job but somebody has to do it....

We need "in-lens" tractor beams to stop the action "D

JeffreyG wrote in post #16244498
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?

And you know all this how?
Did you learn about optics at disc brake engineering school?

stpix wrote in post #16244785
And you know all this how?
Did you learn about optics at disc brake engineering school?

Cost estimating is not taught in engineering school. It is learned on the job. And yes, I am in fact very well qualified to estimate the cost of a lot of things ranging from large ductile cast iron parts over to small, complex mechatronic devices.

To be honest, I cannot see just what you are trying to dispute here anyway. Canon can IS in lenses that sell for as little as 150 dollars. Sony can put IS in dSLR bodies that sell for well under a grand. All camera makers have IS in their cheap compacts. Obviously the basic mechanisms are cheap.

Bigger lenses will need some correspondingly bigger bits to shake the IS optic element, but why would this cost 20 times as much? And wouldn't that be a great reason to ditch lens IS on anything but the already pricy supertelephotos?

Scott M wrote in post #16243686
One benefit to having IS in the lens and not the body is that the image in the viewfinder is stabilized, too, with a lens-based system.

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.

It's in their marketing material, though I'm sure it's in the technical literature somewhere as well.

http://www.usa.canon.c​om …display/Lens_Ad​vantage_IS

Canon have also claimed that stabilized lenses makes AF more reliable, since the AF system has to find a contrast in the AF sensor pairs to match, and then deduce the proper focus movement according to the phase difference between these two contrasts. When the contrasts are jumping around on the sensor pairs, tracking isn't any easier, compared to when they are stabilized on the AF sensors.

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.

Physically they are not the same, but the research and development costs I'm sure came from the same bucket...so the large cost of IS, the initial research, is the same for all the different IS systems.

JeffreyG wrote in post #16244943
Cost estimating is not taught in engineering school. It is learned on the job. And yes, I am in fact very well qualified to estimate the cost of a lot of things ranging from large ductile cast iron parts over to small, complex mechatronic devices.

To be honest, I cannot see just what you are trying to dispute here anyway. Canon can IS in lenses that sell for as little as 150 dollars. Sony can put IS in dSLR bodies that sell for well under a grand. All camera makers have IS in their cheap compacts. Obviously the basic mechanisms are cheap.

Bigger lenses will need some correspondingly bigger bits to shake the IS optic element, but why would this cost 20 times as much? And wouldn't that be a great reason to ditch lens IS on anything but the already pricy supertelephotos?

Jeffery, save your breath. Some people just don't understand and will argue their pointless point to death.

amfoto1 wrote in post #16244232
If in-camera stabilization fails, it will be down for the count on all lenses. You should still be able to shoot without the benefit of stabilization. But for repair you'll need to send in the camera itself, which may be the end of your shooting for a while if you don't have a backup on hand.

My first DSLR was a Konica-Minolta 5D. When the in-body IS went nuts, the shutter became inoperative even when IS was switched off. So it's not necessarily true that you can shoot without IS with an in-body IS camera if the IS fails.

JeffreyG wrote in post #16244943
Cost estimating is not taught in engineering school. It is learned on the job. And yes, I am in fact very well qualified to estimate the cost of a lot of things ranging from large ductile cast iron parts over to small, complex mechatronic devices.

To be honest, I cannot see just what you are trying to dispute here anyway. Canon can IS in lenses that sell for as little as 150 dollars. Sony can put IS in dSLR bodies that sell for well under a grand. All camera makers have IS in their cheap compacts. Obviously the basic mechanisms are cheap.

Bigger lenses will need some correspondingly bigger bits to shake the IS optic element, but why would this cost 20 times as much? And wouldn't that be a great reason to ditch lens IS on anything but the already pricy supertelephotos?

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.

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.

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.

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.

So how come Tamron, Sigma and other non-Canon brands have some fantastic Image Stabilization (VR or whatever you call it) in them these days and are still miles cheaper than a Canon equivalent in most cases? Answer that and win a cookie.

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.

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?