Time for IS in 50mm and 85mm or even 135mm

I can remember when they first introduced AF. Don't you think there will be a day when all lenses have IS/OS/VR/Vc?

pwm2 wrote in post #16779330
No, when Canon did introduce IS, the component costs was much higher than now. The addition of large amounts of sensors is the smart phones is what have driven down the costs significantly. It's all about volume. It was also much harder then to manage IS with a tight power budget.

Article or other evidence of this.

pwm2 wrote in post #16779351
Let's say that in-body IS have the same probability of breaking down as in-lens IS. But we do know that the IS in the lenses do fail sometimes. Sometimes you can continue to use the lens without IS, but sometimes that lens can't be used until fixed.

With same failure rate in-body, you can't switch to another lens and continue with IS. You might be able to continue without IS, but it is more likely that it isn't just the shake mechanism that has failed but that you get a communication failure with the sensor. So it's time for the backup body. With a shaking sensor, you do need communication wires between a fixed and a moving part - that's not something that is needed in the IS of a lens.

You can contrive any doomsday scenario, but in reality there is no evidence inbody IS breaks down anymore than any other feature in your camera. If you rely on your camera to get the shot, a professional, you will have a backup camera already as cameras break down for many different reasons.

Your contrived example is just that, contrived

Hogloff wrote in post #16779492
Article or other evidence of this.

Article or other evidence? Being in the embedded market, building equipment using these sensors.

Ten years ago the sensors were often too expensive to add because they would increase the fabrication cost too much. So we had to sell extremely expensive external sensors to the customers that specifically needed sensors.

Today, we can add sensors "just in case", without it making much difference to the production cost. We just charge the customer a license fee for the the server functionality to receive and present the measurements, basically representing a 100% profit.

The last 10 years really have seen a huge change in cheap availability of sensors and capable microcontrollers. But it isn't always easy to compare prices - "same" processor now and 10 years ago might look similar, with the exception that todays microcontroller has 5 times as powerful peripherial hardware (ADC, DAC, PWM, timers, DMA, SPI, I2C, USB, Ethernet, ...) while running many times faster despite drawing a fraction of the power.

In short - I can do so very much more today in a product that is much smaller, much cheaper and requiring a tiny fraction of the power requirements. That same thing goes for most of the embedded market - and the lens electronics is part of the embedded market.

Hogloff wrote in post #16779499
You can contrive any doomsday scenario, but in reality there is no evidence inbody IS breaks down anymore than any other feature in your camera. If you rely on your camera to get the shot, a professional, you will have a backup camera already as cameras break down for many different reasons.

Your contrived example is just that, contrived

I think you are reading my post like the devil might read the bible.

I did not contrieve any doomsday scenario.

I did just notice that if there are the same probability of IS failure in body or in lens, then the implication is larger when it's the body that fails. Are you not agreeing with that?

I am happy (and blessed) with the gear I own, and I will shoot accordingly with that gear.

Just my own thing...


Jason

pwm2 wrote in post #16779663
Article or other evidence? Being in the embedded market, building equipment using these sensors.

Ten years ago the sensors were often too expensive to add because they would increase the fabrication cost too much. So we had to sell extremely expensive external sensors to the customers that specifically needed sensors.

Today, we can add sensors "just in case", without it making much difference to the production cost. We just charge the customer a license fee for the the server functionality to receive and present the measurements, basically representing a 100% profit.

The last 10 years really have seen a huge change in cheap availability of sensors and capable microcontrollers. But it isn't always easy to compare prices - "same" processor now and 10 years ago might look similar, with the exception that todays microcontroller has 5 times as powerful peripherial hardware (ADC, DAC, PWM, timers, DMA, SPI, I2C, USB, Ethernet, ...) while running many times faster despite drawing a fraction of the power.

In short - I can do so very much more today in a product that is much smaller, much cheaper and requiring a tiny fraction of the power requirements. That same thing goes for most of the embedded market - and the lens electronics is part of the embedded market.

Well if things have gotten so much cheaper, Canon sure has not passed these savings on to us. They still charge a premium for IS, many times more than it costs...just because they can.

pwm2 wrote in post #16779671
I think you are reading my post like the devil might read the bible.

I did not contrieve any doomsday scenario.

I did just notice that if there are the same probability of IS failure in body or in lens, then the implication is larger when it's the body that fails. Are you not agreeing with that?

Totally agree, just like AF fails and shutters fail and meters fail. If you are a pro, then you cover your ass by having backup equipment. If you are so concerned with failure, you should go back to fully manual cameras as anything with electronics and computers are more prone to failure. I don't see how inbody IS should be singled out as a big failure point compared to all the other electrical components.

Hogloff wrote in post #16779793
Well if things have gotten so much cheaper, Canon sure has not passed these savings on to us. They still charge a premium for IS, many times more than it costs...just because they can.

Of course they are charging several times more than it costs.

Canon needs to up the price with 100% before sending to the distributors.

The distributors and the shops selling need to increase the price further.

That isn't Canon-specific, but a requirement.

Remember also that the Canon gets when selling the equipment to the distributors needs to cover
- R&D costs
- materials
- manufacturing costs
- factory QA testing
- stock costs
- service staff
- warranty repairs
- marketing materials
- shipping
- product maintainance (components regularly goes end-of-Life)
- ...
and in the end, there must still be a significant profit for the owners. They obviously don't want to make more money by just having their money in a bank.

It's just that if $30 of electronics drops to $5, it will matter a lot when the product ends up in the local camera shop.

There is a reason why we now have lenses like the EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS II or the EF-S 55-250/4-5,6 IS II. Both with IS and both sold at a very attractive price.

Hogloff wrote in post #16779812
Totally agree, just like AF fails and shutters fail and meters fail. If you are a pro, then you cover your ass by having backup equipment. If you are so concerned with failure, you should go back to fully manual cameras as anything with electronics and computers are more prone to failure. I don't see how inbody IS should be singled out as a big failure point compared to all the other electrical components.

You are continuing to read random noise instead what is actually written. IS hasn't been singled out as extra failure prone, except that this is a thread about IS. Should we discuss IS now? Or maybe you prefer IS threads to debate the design of shutters?

Hogloff wrote in post #16779492
Article or other evidence of this.

40d brand new in 2007 $1300.00, in today's market that would reflect to $1500.00. So it seems like the price of technology does come down as the 6D can be purchased for 20.00 more through canon refurb store or brand new for two to three hundred more.

Copperny wrote in post #16779893
40d brand new in 2007 $1300.00, in today's market that would reflect to $1500.00. So it seems like the price of technology does come down as the 6D can be purchased for 20.00 more through canon refurb store or brand new for two to three hundred more.

Except that the 40D is closer to a xxxD or maybe xxxxD body today. There is a huge price press on electronics. Any company that doesn't constantly reengineer to cut their production costs will fail badly unless they happen to have cornered a market with patents or similar to be able to keep the competition away without having to either constantly adjust the prices down or constantly add new functionality/capabili​ty to be allowed to stay at the same price point.

pwm2 wrote in post #16779848
Of course they are charging several times more than it costs.

Canon needs to up the price with 100% before sending to the distributors.

The distributors and the shops selling need to increase the price further.

That isn't Canon-specific, but a requirement.

Remember also that the Canon gets when selling the equipment to the distributors needs to cover
- R&D costs
- materials
- manufacturing costs
- factory QA testing
- stock costs
- service staff
- warranty repairs
- marketing materials
- shipping
- product maintainance (components regularly goes end-of-Life)
- ...
and in the end, there must still be a significant profit for the owners. They obviously don't want to make more money by just having their money in a bank.

It's just that if $30 of electronics drops to $5, it will matter a lot when the product ends up in the local camera shop.

There is a reason why we now have lenses like the EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS II or the EF-S 55-250/4-5,6 IS II. Both with IS and both sold at a very attractive price.

Then there are the new wide primes with IS that came out at very unattractive prices. Basically, IS can be put into every lens at minimal cost to Canon, but at substantial cost to the end user. Give me IS in the body and I'm covered for all my focal lengths under 100mm.

pwm2 wrote in post #16779857
You are continuing to read random noise instead what is actually written. IS hasn't been singled out as extra failure prone, except that this is a thread about IS. Should we discuss IS now? Or maybe you prefer IS threads to debate the design of shutters?

I believe you are the one that brought up IS as a failure point in cameras and I just went into say there are many failure points in today's camera and pros carry backup systems just for this reason. Basically IS being failure prone in cameras is no more an issue than any other component being failure prone. Definetly not a reason to not provide IS in the body.

No. Then there are the new L lenses that came out with very unattractive prices. There are nothing indicating that IS have anything to do with it.

The new 24-70/4L IS has a similar price as the 24-105/4 IS. Despite being new.
But the 24-70/2.8L II non-IS is rather expensive.

So I don't think you can point fingers at IS as the cause for Canon's high release prices for their new high-end lenses.

And as I have already shown - Canon is releasing lenses with IS at a very minimal cost to the end user.

I think you just like to believe that the expensive lenses gets a significant part of their price hike from IS.

It's in situations where Canon releases both an IS and a non-IS version of the "same" lens that the IS version will get a significantly higher price just because there needs to be a significant amount of extra money to Canon to cover the costs of having two competing lenses.