nicksan wrote in post #7945055
If it were up to #4, I would have said 5D MKII Should-have-been Edition.
Don't think they would implement sensor IS looking at the lens lineup.
I see it exactly opposite. By that, I don't mean that they will implement sensor IS -- I agree that they won't -- but not because of the lens lineup. Let me explain. The only FF zooms with IS are the 24-105 / 4L IS and the 70-xxx zooms (as well as the 100-400 IS), which are all either slow, large, or both. All other IS lenses are long primes (save the 200 / 2L IS).
For longer focal lengths, there is a definite advantage to the stabilized viewfinder, so I think people might still prefer to spend more for those lenses even if the body had sensor IS. However, save the 24-105 / 4L IS, there are no shorter lenses with IS, and the advantages of lens IS are minor for such shorter focal lengths. And being able to get IS on all my lenses at once, as opposed to IS versions of the lenses I own trickling down over the years, if ever, would be very welcome. And, since the Sony A900 has shown that it can be done, without any major expense, there's no reason not to do so.
Then again, where was the reason not to implement items 1-4 on the list? Protection of the 1-series DSLRs? Seems lame, and, perhaps, even counterproductive. The reason I say that is because for all those who puchase a "5DII should-have-been" over a 1-series DSLR, they would likely spend their other disposable income on glass, so Canon gets their money either way.
But even that is short-sighted thinking. The goal is to attract as many people to your brand as possible. So even if those who chose the "5DII should-have-been" over 1D bodies choose to save their money, Canon would instead make more money off of those who now chose Canon instead of Nikon or Sony. Not only would they get the money from the bodies, but the money from all the glass these people would buy.