Why so little in body image stabilization?

Why do not Canon and Nikon offer bodies with IBIS? (Just turn it off for stabilized lenses.) Why do sony chose to offer Nex without IBIS?

I don't get it. I can't really see the disadvantage with IBIS. Olympus seems to have no problems with either price or size for IBIS. IBIS also seems to be just as effective as stabilized lenses.

What am I missing?

The word "Canikon" ?

Body stabilisation wouldn't give a stabilised image through an optical viewfinder, would probably be the shallow excuse.

Nikon & Canon own lens stabilization technology.  They aren't going to pay someone else to get in body stabilization!  Also they say lens IS is superior.

Olympus in the early years didn't have stabilization.  In the C-2100uz they used Canon's technology (probaly why the camera was overpriced).

When it came time to add IS, they probably didn't want to pay for another company's technology, so came up with their own IBIS.

Sony/Minolta implemented IBIS successfully on OVF cameras. If Canikon have problems getting their heads around this they could just buy an old Sony DSLR and take it apart.

Note that I am not saying that Canikon should necessarily stop making stabilized lenses. There are some reasons for continuing to do that, especially with an OVF.

However, with IBIS canikon users could for a small price get ALL their lenses stabilized, and canikon would also have the opportunity to make smaller and cheaper unstabilized versions of many of the currently stabilized lenses.

So who has the patent for IBIS?

I am sure canikon needs a lot of patents to make their cameras, paying for the IBIS patent seems very worthwhile. It does not seem to add any significant cost to olympus or Sony cameras.

Please show us the evidence that sensor stabilisation produces a stabilised image in an optical viewfinder, and then you can shame Canikon.

Of course it doesn't, but that isn't necessary either. Again, just look at how Minolta/Sony did it. If anything I get the impression that those users usually think that the IBIS implementation is an advantage, not a disadvantage.

If you are using a stabilized lens then you can just turn off the IBIS and use the in lens stabilization instead if you want a stabilized OVF.

Give em a Pentax K1000, a 50mm MF prime, and a roll of film and see what they come up with...

In lens stabilization also stabilized the "image" in the phase based AF system in typical DSLRs.  In low light and smaller shutter speeds where stabilization is often useful, many phase based AF systems "look" a bit longer to get good focus.  Stabilizing the AF system image certainly appears useful in this situation.  In body stabilization is most compatible with main sensor based AF systems like contrast AF.

--
Leon
http://pws.prserv.net/leons_pics/landscapes.htm

Having used both, I think the delay in optical stabilisation working could prove a distraction. According to wikipedia it came along in 1994 with film cameras. The reason they carry on with it is that "Not Invented Here" syndrome that sensor stabilisation provokes. Canon & Nikon have a system that works and offers an overt advantage of working in the viewfinder (spurious or no) and they can obtain a per-lens profit on their own technology. So far on dpreview I don't see anyone already on their camera systems that sees the need to switch systems on the basis of optical v sensor stabilisation, so the big two have no motive to change their designs.

That is a reasonable theory, yet Minolta/Sony dod nit seem to have any problems with this in their phase detect AF DSLRs with IBIS and OVF.

So no, this does not seem to be a problem.

That is the only reason I can see also. The "not invented here syndrome" and not enough users asking for a change. Although, my personal experience is that a lot of canikon users are dreaming about getting all their primes stabilized with IBIS.

However, this does not explain why Sony chose not to use IBIS on Nex.

It is also weird why Panasonic did not chose IBIS for their MFT cameras.

Theoretically, OS/IS has an advantage at longer focal lengths, where a tiny movement at the end of the lens could mean a tiny adjustment with OS/IS but a major sensor shift with IBS. Maybe only an issue with lenses over 400mm.

--
Jeff Peterman, Moderator 7D and Phone/Tablet forums.
Any insults, implied anger, bad grammar and bad spelling, are entirely unintentionalal. Sorry.
www.pbase.com/jeffp25
www.jeffp25.smugmug.com

Please provide some references for anyone testing lower light, lower shutter speed phase detect AF comparing in-lens vs in-body stabilization.  People mostly accept what they get when there are no actual comparisons.  Put another way, folks don't know what they are missing.  Actually, my low light shooting shows AF effects if I am not careful in holding the camera.

--
Leon
http://pws.prserv.net/leons_pics/landscapes.htm

Yes, and IF that is true in practice why not just keep making those lenses with built in stabilization, and let users turn on IBIS for all the unstabilized lenses they have?

I gave you a pretty good reason above but you don't seem open to views that are different than yours.

--
Leon
http://pws.prserv.net/leons_pics/landscapes.htm

I can neither prove or disprove what you are saying, but I do know that a large number of people used Minolta/Sony DSLRs without any significants complaints about this autofocus-issue as far as I know.

Also Sony DSLT cameras have unstabilized phase autofocus and as far as I know people have not experienced these problems you are referring to.

Because then they couldn't sell us a $700 f/2.8 24mm or 28mm prime - which I would never buy anyway, but some apparently would.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

How would they know what to expect?  Many folks put up with issues because they do not know it is an issue.  In addition, you seem to be saying that having a moving image on the AF sensor can not degrade the AF performance.  That does not seem reasonable.

--
Leon
http://pws.prserv.net/leons_pics/landscapes.htm

Camera manufacturers should not underestimate the marketing clout of IBIS for advanced users. I bought into Sony rather than Nikon solely on the basis of IBIS when I went digital. The Sony NEX cameras don't have it because of the small is all design criterion and because Sony thought the NEX range was for bridge cameras - hopefully they have learned and the NEX-7 successor and FF NEX will have IBIS, even if there is a size penalty. For legacy lenses there is just no alternative.