Why no in body image stabilization?

JeffreyG wrote in post #16247123
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.

Too bad we didn't get into cars a little more.... The idea that Cadillac would share many of the same parts with "Chevy" and other European Brands, might be heracy, and to think the higher price might be due to the "name", would simply be too much to handle.

http://www.forbes.com …-30000-for-fake-prestige/

I think Honda, Toyota and Nissan are worse. They sometimes release the SAME exact vehicle with different finishes and badges at a much higher price under their premium brands.

JeffreyG wrote in post #16247123
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.

So using your logic, everything of similar function should cost more or less the same.

Canon IS, 4 door sedans, hamburgers. Heck, why does an L cost more, its simply a bigger piece of glass and some white paint, that can't cost much, right?

Furthermore, why would Canon change practices given that their legacy is lens stabalization?

Unregistered.Coward wrote in post #16247944
So using your logic, everything of similar function should cost more or less the same.

Canon IS, 4 door sedans, hamburgers. Heck, why does an L cost more, its simply a bigger piece of glass and some white paint, that can't cost much, right?

Furthermore, why would Canon change practices given that their legacy is lens stabalization?

So are we agreeing you have no point to make?

I mean, my point is that Canon originally launched in-lens IS because it is the only thing that works with the film cameras of the time, and they probably are sticking with it because selling IS-equipped lenses is profitable for them.

You seem to kind of agree with my point, but you are also dead set on explaining to me that IS-equipped lenses are not profitable for Canon for some reason which I am unable to fathom.

Can you give this mystery theory where Canon makes no money on IS-equipped lenses since they are so expensive to make, but they refuse to make IS-equipped bodies for some reason? What would that reason be?

This topic comes up about every year, and the consensus has always been that even though in-body stabilization would be nice, it really only works for wide angle and midrange focal lengths, and beyond that it would not be sufficient. Couple that with the fact that people really are wary of yet more moving parts (sensor platform), and it seems there just isn't that much market demand.

Canon could keep making IS lenses and add IS to the body with an option to turn it off if the lens reports it is image-stabilized, but they won't. They are more involved with new sensor design (ala 70D), creating multiple model lines (EOS-M, SL1), and revamping their lens lineup currently, and most likely isn't ready to tackle such a product change at this time. It just wouldn't be as lucrative as what they are doing today.

I've posted this before, but Q3 of 2012 Operating profit for Canon down 43%, yet still yield nearly 1 Billion.

http://www.engadget.co​m …ng-profit-drops-by-42-pe/

davidc502 wrote in post #16248312
I've posted this before, but Q3 of 2012 Operating profit for Canon down 43%, yet still yield nearly 1 Billion.

http://www.engadget.co​m …ng-profit-drops-by-42-pe/

What does this have to do with inbody IS versus lens based IS?

Hogloff wrote in post #16248339
What does this have to do with inbody IS versus lens based IS?

I guess they're losing their shirt, because of selling lenses with IS.

JeffreyG wrote in post #16248177
So are we agreeing you have no point to make?

I mean, my point is that Canon originally launched in-lens IS because it is the only thing that works with the film cameras of the time, and they probably are sticking with it because selling IS-equipped lenses is profitable for them.

You seem to kind of agree with my point, but you are also dead set on explaining to me that IS-equipped lenses are not profitable for Canon for some reason which I am unable to fathom.

Can you give this mystery theory where Canon makes no money on IS-equipped lenses since they are so expensive to make, but they refuse to make IS-equipped bodies for some reason? What would that reason be?

Where did I make a statement with regards to Canon not being profitable? Canon charges what the market will support. Canon charges what they perceive as a fair cost for their goods. That cost covers manufacturing, past investment and funds R&D along with business growth. And profit. Cause thats why they are in business, to make money.

Mechatronics simply denotes a skill set similar to that of electromechanical engineering. That could cover a broad range of subject matter and the fact that you employ the faddish term doesn't mean diddly-squat.

I'm laughing. No, seriously, I'm laughing so hard there's tears in my eyes.

Unregistered.Coward wrote in post #16248385
I'm laughing. No, seriously, I'm laughing so hard there's tears in my eyes.

Can you perhaps give some background for yourself? You tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I don't even know what your background is. Your statements are not consistent with anyone working in my field, so my reaction is to generally discount your comments, but who knows?

I have twenty years experience as an engineer. The majority of my professional experience has been in developing diesel engines. I spent several years of my career as the team leader of a department dedicated to 'mechatronic' systems, which you seem to think do not even exist. My boss will be surprised to know that my team has been spending so much time and effort on nonexistent faddish things that do not work.

Your laughing to suggest that newly minted BSME degree holders have learned to be great cost estimators? That's ridiculous. For sure it was not taught as much of a curricum item when I was an undergraduate (we learned stuff like heat transfer, vibrations, materials science, controls theory, applied differential equations and such) and I don't see much evidence that they are teaching it now. I mentor interns every year, and they do not show signs of being savant cost estimators right out of school.

On the opposite tack, my experienced engineers are very good at estimating the cost of the things they design right as they go. Take any part....they can look at a stamping and see the number of hits, the size of the blank and the weight of the part and get the cost in their head pretty fast. It works for any kind of part that one has really ever had experience in designing. One can learn what an injection molding, a spring, fasteners, wiring, circuit boards all will cost. This is the very basis of on the job learning.

Electronically controlled and actuated mechanical systems do in fact exist in my business, and they are similar in a lot of approach to the kind of systems that make EOS lenses focus and stabilize.

In any case, you continue to have no point. I can't estimate cost of mechanical systems.....because I can't apparently. And my estimation that IS costs a lot less that it is marginally sold for is really important for you to dispute for no obvious reason.

What I can tell from your posts is that you have never designed something and brought it all the way to production. You've never lived through the design iterations, worked the problem solving steps to deal with failures, managed the project timelines and cost targets while bringing a complicated system to birth in the real world. You don't understand product engineering and you have no basis to even begin to understand what I am telling you. I guess I'm done.

Hogloff wrote in post #16248339
What does this have to do with inbody IS versus lens based IS?

My thoughts were, there was discussion about IS and profits with EF-S lens vs. L lenses. So, I thought I would throw that out there. Yeah, what does it really have to do with the price of beans in China? Not that much actually.

JeffreyG wrote in post #16248466
Can you perhaps give some background for yourself? You tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I don't even know what your background is. Your statements are not consistent with anyone working in my field, so my reaction is to generally discount your comments, but who knows?

I have twenty years experience as an engineer. The majority of my professional experience has been in developing diesel engines. I spent several years of my career as the team leader of a department dedicated to 'mechatronic' systems, which you seem to think do not even exist. My boss will be surprised to know that my team has been spending so much time and effort on nonexistent faddish things that do not work.

Your laughing to suggest that newly minted BSME degree holders have learned to be great cost estimators? That's ridiculous. For sure it was not taught as much of a curricum item when I was an undergraduate (we learned stuff like heat transfer, vibrations, materials science, controls theory, applied differential equations and such) and I don't see much evidence that they are teaching it now. I mentor interns every year, and they do not show signs of being savant cost estimators right out of school.

On the opposite tack, my experienced engineers are very good at estimating the cost of the things they design right as they go. Take any part....they can look at a stamping and see the number of hits, the size of the blank and the weight of the part and get the cost in their head pretty fast. It works for any kind of part that one has really ever had experience in designing. One can learn what an injection molding, a spring, fasteners, wiring, circuit boards all will cost. This is the very basis of on the job learning.

Electronically controlled and actuated mechanical systems do in fact exist in my business, and they are similar in a lot of approach to the kind of systems that make EOS lenses focus and stabilize.

In any case, you continue to have no point. I can't estimate cost of mechanical systems.....because I can't apparently. And my estimation that IS costs a lot less that it is marginally sold for is really important for you to dispute for no obvious reason.

What I can tell from your posts is that you have never designed something and brought it all the way to production. You've never lived through the design iterations, worked the problem solving steps to deal with failures, managed the project timelines and cost targets while bringing a complicated system to birth in the real world. You don't understand product engineering and you have no basis to even begin to understand what I am telling you. I guess I'm done.

Fascinating. You're line of argument is "I'm right because you're wrong".

Thirty five years of engineering. Two degrees, chemical and mechanical plus extensive hands on experience in the field of automation and control.

And we make optics.

PS: Please don't make up assertions not in evidence. I won't tattle to the mods on you, but they do make you look inept and foolish.

Unregistered.Coward wrote in post #16249559
Fascinating. You're line of argument is "I'm right because you're wrong".

Thirty five years of engineering. Two degrees, chemical and mechanical plus extensive hands on experience in the field of automation and control.

And we make optics.

With all that great experience, why don't you actually put up some counters to what Jeffrey has presented rather than just some gibberish nonsense that you've posted so far. I follow and understand Jeffrey's logic, but all you put up is some double speak.

As I understand it there is an issue with now much movement you can have in the IS system.

You can have more movement in a lens element, (give more stops of IS) than you can have trying to move a lagre full frame sensor about, and the in lens elemnt does not need to move as much as in body to give the same level of IS. With the tiny sensors on point and shoots it easy to move them around in body, but not so simple with a full frame sensor.

There is also the point about image circle size.

In-body image stabilization requires the lens to have a larger output image circle because the sensor is moved during exposure and thus uses a larger part of the image.

So you could have in body IS on cropped sensor camera so long as you only use EF and not EF-S lenses

Hogloff wrote in post #16249776
With all that great experience, why don't you actually put up some counters to what Jeffrey has presented rather than just some gibberish nonsense that you've posted so far. I follow and understand Jeffrey's logic, but all you put up is some double speak.

Really? Please quote my double-speak/gibberish?

A quick look at Wikipedia shows the advancement of offerings in Canon's Image Stablization.

Do you seriously think that Canon is offering the same level / quality / reliability of stabalization in the EFS 18-55 as one would find in the latest iteration of the 400 f/2.8L ? Last I looked, mine didn't have a mode switch. Or that hybrid technology found in the EF 100.

Price of a commodity is based on many factors, cost of the components is just part of the equation.

What would be the motivation for Canon to move to body based stabalization given that the majority of their IP is associated with implementing it in the lens.