Why so little in body image stabilization?

Started 5 months ago | Discussion thread
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum ProPosts: 33,504
Like?
Tiny, incremental upgrades?
In reply to ljfinger, 5 months ago

ljfinger wrote:

Woland65 wrote:

Paul C wrote:

Nobody owns an interchangeable lens camera with no lenses.

Some people own an interchangeable lens camera and 1 lens.

Some people own an interchangeable lens camera and many lenses.

If I were manufacturing stabilisation, and it cost (say) £30 per item to implement, and I could make £5 profit per item on this area, I'd be putting the stabilisation in the lens. Of course, the converse is true from the consumer's point of view - so in body stabilisation makes sense for the buyer, but not necessarily the manufacturer.

That could be the reason for Canon yes, but that is probably the most stupid reason of all. It has been proven so many times that this short sighted way of ripping off your customers is never a good way to expand your business in the long run.

For Panasonic that reason seems rather more unlikely, I think.

I am willing to pay extra for stabilized lenses over an above a stabilized camera when those lenses have focal lengths above 100mm or so. I'd love if Canon came out with in camera stabilization for my other lenses, like my 17-40L, 35/1.4L, and 85/1.8. But they seem to be going through their lens lineup and redoing all their lenses with IS, so I don't think I'll get my wish.

Incidentally, Canon's strategy of tiny, incremental upgrades has prevented me from buying any new cameras from them since 2005

Do you own a car, Lee Jay? Because that's an industry that manages about a 3% per annual model revision metric improvement. How about a house?

Seriously, tiny, incremental upgrades are the norm for all industries. You get access to an improved part, you launch it.

when I bought my 5D.

5D II was anything but "tiny". The updated to that increased sales 5x (based on serial number analysis). 5D was a major disappointment for Canon, missing sales targets, piling up in warehouses despite an industry record for price cuts and incentive packages.

There are signs things are changing, with the f/8 AF upgrade to the 5DIII, the radio flashes and so on, but there are still signs of stupid behavior too, such as the removal of video crop, the lack of support for in-camera DNG

DNG is inadequate, ask any raw software developer. The only thing in-camera DNG is a "sign of" is that your camera company has too little resources to do anything better.

, and the lack of in camera stabilization.

That's bed adequately debunked.

Until they do better, I'll continue to keep my 7-year-old cameras.

You do what works for you. But try to mellow out on the "signs of stupidity" speeches.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008. Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed. Ciao! Joseph www.swissarmyfork.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow