Canon, get over it. Implement sensor IS. And figure out how to make a sensor as good as Sony's sensor in the K5 and D7000 while you're at it.
Here's the business reality. You want the feature great. But there hasn't been a compelling reason yet for Canon to give it to you.
That's a weak argument, in my opinion. There was no "compelling reason" for updating the 300 / 2.8L IS, either.
There simply aren't enough people choosing Oly, Pentax, Sony over Canon/Nikon BECAUSE OF anti-shake to make it a business need.
Likewise, there aren't enough people choosing Nikon over Canon because of the performance of the 300 / 2.8L IS to "make it a business need".
It's pretty evident by both Canon and Nikon NOT doing this that they believe the lost revenue is greater than the increase in customers they would gain. If one of those two blinks the other would have to follow.
This, I agree with. Canon likely feels that if they implement sensor IS that Nikon will immediately follow, and all it will do is result in a loss of sales of IS lenses, with no net gain of new customers.
However, let's talk about that short interim period when Nikon plays catch-up. When Nikon came out with the D3, how many customers did Canon lose to Nikon who chose it over the 1D3? How much damage was done to Canon by the time they released the 1D4?
Of course, one could argue that this Nikon triumph was not the D3 itself, but the AF fiasco with the 1D3. Fair enough. But there is reason to think that Canon would, indeed, stand to gain.
BUT, Oly's DSLR is a burning platform so that's not a competitor anymore.
Which is a terrible shame. I was hoping they would grow and put more pressure on Canon to implement similar features and improve their consumer lenses.
Pentax still has a minute market share so that's not a threat. Only Sony is a real threat. And their marketing blunders over the last 2 years (creating all kinds of confusion regarding where there direction and commitment is) has halted their growth.
Sony's new sensor in the K5 and D7000 is a game changer -- I mean 14 stops of DR at base ISO?! Let's see what happens while that starts to sink in on the market.
So, while there's no argument that in-body IS would benefit photographers there's no reason right now for canon to do it. You can wish all you want that canon did not go the in-lens route but they did. But make no mistake - they are businesses. They're only going to lose money when they have to. And the only thing that will cause them to have to is market pressure. Pentax and Oly aren't exerting enough market pressure. SO it's up to Sony.
Go Sony!
But the reality seems to be - not enough people feel it's a make-or-break issue and are thus going elsewhere for their DSLR needs. It doesn't matter if Canon loses SOME customers. They have to lose MORE revenue in lost customers to make up for the cost in revenue brought in by IS (and the cost of R&D for implementing in their cameras). Until the loss is greater it's a bad business decision. I get you don't like that. But running a business isn't always about keeping EVERY customer happy.
If it were just me, sure, that would be one thing. But my opinion is
far from a minority opinion. And, the thing is, if it's Nikon that goes with sensor IS first, which would be smart for them to do, it widens the gulf, sucking more customers from Canon.
Canon has been riding on it's "past glory", just like American car manufacturers did. Then the Japanese came along with better cars, and by the time that the American car manufacturers decided to react, it was too little too late.
The moral of the story is: don't turn off the engines just because you're cruising smoothly at 40,000 ft.
