Why no in body image stabilization?

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?

Give it up man. People will defend these companies like they are being paid to do so.

_atlien_ wrote in post #16245567
Give it up man. People will defend these companies like they are being paid to do so.

Agreed....

It's all marketing, and Canon's the most profitable doing it against any other company.

Everything they do, is for a reason. The main reason, like most things, is to stay profitable. That's what capitalism is about.

You can always tell who the short timers are...

I imagine that if Canon would have decided to have IS in the camera's body, there would be some of us in this thread wishing to have the IS in the lens

System wide design choices are sometimes arbitrary. Sometimes pre-determined by the legacy of the system.

As a user you don't need to know why. If it's a major issue for you, consider other systems. If it's not, pick the lenses you like and just shoot.

Kyle Blunt wrote in post #16245447
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.

Because what you as a manufacturer try to get from the customer vs. how much it has to cost to break even is almost totally unrelated.
As a manufacturer you simply charge as much as you think enough customers are willing to pay. The other brands you listed don't have the same reputation, so they go for charging less.

Where's my cookie?

JeffreyG wrote in post #16244688
You don't have to jump in and save the company's honor from my error-ridden attack.

FIFY

Unregistered.Coward wrote in post #16247108
FIFY

Please feel free to respond with any comments you care to make, but do not attribute quotes to me that are incorrect ot I will have to ask the mods to delete your post.

More broadly, there are a small number of people (you included) who seem to be absolutely convinced that Canon IS units in all but their cheap lenses must be costly to make. Suppose we accept this alternate theory (compared to mine)...what is the implication? How does very costly lens based IS explain Canon's decision to not offer body based IS? What might we expect from Canon in the future if we assume lens based IS is very expensive to manufacture?

Some folks seem to be upset that I have even suggested that IS units cost a lot less to make than they are incrementally priced at, but I have not seen an reasons advanced for the implications of that theory.

I believe the horse is already dead. Maybe it's time to stop beating it.

gjl711 wrote in post #16247164
I believe the horse is already dead. Maybe it's time to stop beating it.

I'm sure the OP is all set relative to the question.

To be honest I'm simply curious about some irrational behaviour. Some folks who don't seem to care one way or another about if Canon should or should not, will or will not ever offer body IS. These people don't even seem to care if lens IS or body IS might be better in use etc.

The only thing that seems to get them mad is a suggestion that a feature's cost might not be directly reflected in the price. I'm curious why this suggestion is so enraging.

I mean, price and cost are severable all the time on all kinds of products, which is a basic tenent of economics.

IS units break all the time. Id rather have one lens down for repair than a body

apersson850 wrote in post #16246350
Because what you as a manufacturer try to get from the customer vs. how much it has to cost to break even is almost totally unrelated.
As a manufacturer you simply charge as much as you think enough customers are willing to pay. The other brands you listed don't have the same reputation, so they go for charging less.

Where's my cookie?

Sorry I ate it. That answer sounds a lot better than 'because IS is expensive' though so it sounds good to me.
Mind you though, Tamron has been gaining more reputation in the past few years, the new Tamron 24-70 is just as good as the Canon one now.
The VC version of my 17-50mm is worse than the non-VC, go figure.

panicatnabisco wrote in post #16247283
IS units break all the time. Id rather have one lens down for repair than a body

well, that's assuming stabilization systems have similar reliability.

In body stabilization can be done via software or mechanical. A software based version would be most reliable, but have some downsides, and a mechanical one would have moving parts..... I've never seen a point and shoot have it's IS system fail, although the zoom functions do fail.

I havent heard of the OMD having issues with their stabilization system, while you can find good documentation on the reliability issues of lens stabilization systems.

In body IS sounds like a good idea but it would increase body costs, even if just a bit, and the name of the game is being competitive in a world where a dollar-or-two can make a difference to the buyer.

panicatnabisco wrote in post #16247283
IS units break all the time. Id rather have one lens down for repair than a body

Yep, but lens are bought and used for many years. Bodies seem to be replaced on an ongoing basis.

I've kept my lens for many years, yet have gone through 4 different bodies in 10 years.