That makes sense. If there's no in-body-IS then they'll add IS to the kit lens... but from a general population's perspective that's still a disadvantage though, but it's an improvement from no IS.
RJJR wrote:
IS in a kit lens is nothing new for Canon. In 2004 the kit lens with my 20D was the EFS 17-85 IS.
Edited by RJJR on Apr 20, 2007 at 02:49 PM GMT
I'm sorry for being unclear, I meant the Rebel kit lens. I was talking about SLRs under $1,000 since those account for over 80% of total SLR purchases.
I believe the 5D has a current package that includes the 24-105L F4IS, making it the "kit lens". I don't know if it's in the US or elsewhere.
Stunnaz wrote:
I understand the pride of Canon users. I am also a Canon user and chose my camera based on the same reasonings that you guys did. I don't like Sony and I will never use their system.
However, here are 3 good reasons why Canon will add in-body-IS just because "Sony's doing it":
1. Sony started with 0 market share a year ago and within months grabbed 6% of the market share at the cost of Canon and Nikon to take 3rd place in the SLR market. Their goal is to reach 10% market share this year and they're on track.
2. Over 80% of SLR sales are cameras under $1,000.
3. One of the main differences between the Rebel XTi and Sony Alpha is in-body-IS.
It doesn't really matter if Peter, Jason and Patty don't like in-body-IS. We're looking at the grand scheme of things, not the opinions of a few individuals. If Sony is gaining market share, Canon will adjust to stop that. As a proud Canon owner, this is what you should expect and want your company to do....Show more →
1. Where are you getting the 6% figure? I shoot in various places but I have yet to run into a single soul sporting an Alpha, and it's been a while since I saw a KM body.
2. I haven't studied any figures, but by my observations...it's still Canon and Nikon taking positions 1 & 2 by far in the sub-$1000 sector.
3. I think you are correct here, and that a $800 XTi with 18-55IS would really take care of that. And I think this is Canon's reaction to the Alpha...and that it might be the *only* reaction that they need to make.
A.Y. wrote:
Please speak only for yourself if you don't want BIS and not for all Canon dSLR owners.
I certainly don't consider BIS a gimmick, and ABSOLUTELY want it.
Edited by A.Y. on Apr 20, 2007 at 01:17 PM GMT
Fair enough. I don't mean to speak for all Canon users, but I am certain that when I've seen the polls and posts that the vast majority of Canon users don't want it and/or don't think it will show up in a Canon body.
Dan Martin wrote:
I've said it before and I've said it again, Canon will not be putting a body based stabilizer in their SLRs. The 18-55 IS is in production and will be released with a new body at the end of the summer. I don't have any details about the body but the 18-55 IS and the 55-250 IS are confirmed.
Thank you for clarifying. I think this is the *proof* of no body IS in the forseeable future for Canon.
18-55 IS? Why would they put IS is such a cheap quality lens. I would rather see them make a 17-85 IS MK II with beter optics and sell that as the kit.
rebelxtnewbie wrote:
18-55 IS? Why would they put IS is such a cheap quality lens. I would rather see them make a 17-85 IS MK II with beter optics and sell that as the kit.
Why? To stomp out the competition.
And Canon already *did* improve on the 17-85IS. It's the 17-55/2.8IS...yeah, I know it's not 'kit' priced, but the upgraded optics aren't free. And looking back at the 17-85 it really isn't bad for the price now...it was a little lacking at the original $600USD.
Grant808 wrote:
1. Where are you getting the 6% figure? I shoot in various places but I have yet to run into a single soul sporting an Alpha, and it's been a while since I saw a KM body.
2. I haven't studied any figures, but by my observations...it's still Canon and Nikon taking positions 1 & 2 by far in the sub-$1000 sector.
3. I think you are correct here, and that a $800 XTi with 18-55IS would really take care of that. And I think this is Canon's reaction to the Alpha...and that it might be the *only* reaction that they need to make.
Yes I believe so. It says Sony sold a certain # of units, which accounts for 6% of the market share... but I don't know if the # of units they sold includes what Minolta sold earlier in the year before Sony took over.
Grant808 wrote:
Why? To stomp out the competition.
And Canon already *did* improve on the 17-85IS. It's the 17-55/2.8IS...yeah, I know it's not 'kit' priced, but the upgraded optics aren't free. And looking back at the 17-85 it really isn't bad for the price now...it was a little lacking at the original $600USD.
Yeah but the 17-55 2.8 IS isn't really a beginner kit and would be hard to price it as part of a camera kit under $1K.
I think the whole arguement in this post is about what canon should do to compete at the entry level. IMO a optically better entry level lens would be more benificial that body IS and still keep it ~1K.
Thanks for the link. I guess that does make sense: Canon at nearly 1/2, Nikon at 1/3, and Sony at 1/16th market share.
The only caveat on the data that I can think of is that those might not be the numbers of sales into the consumer hands. Sony only has to sell to the retailers. For all we know, half of the 300,000 units are sitting on store shelves and warehouses. It'll be interesting to see the 2007 numbers.
Edit:
The real surprise to me is how Sony bypassed Olympus in less than a year. That is pretty impressive.
But a side note...I think the only way any other competitor will rattle Canon's cage is to produce a sensor with better high ISO and noise performance overall. Sadly, the only competitor on *that* front is the underdog Sigma.
Yeah but the 17-55 2.8 IS isn't really a beginner kit and would be hard to price it as part of a camera kit under $1K.
If Canon perceived in-body IS offerings from other companies as a serious threat (and there is no evidence that they do), it would be more cost effective for them to sell the 17-55 2.8 IS as a kit lens at a loss than to revamp their entire IS concept, strategy, and body design initiatives.
They are likely to be able to release their next DRebel and xxD cameras at low enough body prices to do that, perhaps even without a loss. And they may well be ready to produce a genuinely low-cost IS kit lens.
But the least economically favorable thing they could do would be to drop their R&D investment in lens IS technology at the low end where the profit margin is already razor thin...and it's not by any means certain that the low end players are a significant threat anyway.
Yeah I agree that eventually at the low-end the manufactures will make almost no profit... it's kind of like what Sony and Microsoft are doing with the PS3 and Xbox360. For videogames the profit comes from the software. With DSLRs, the profit comes from upgrades.
Canon does need to do something to counter the in-body IS rage. And they have 2 real choices:
They can provide in-body IS on at least some of their line (likely the step-up models).
Or they can start an ad campaign to educate consumers about the merits of the two IS systems. It should be pretty easy to show the benefits of in-lens IS over in-body IS - just show the viewfinder's images! They could even make the ads like Apple's that poke fun at PC's.
Or they could do both!
Speaking of both ... actually having both IS systems wouldn't be bad at all - in-body for under 150mm or so and in-lens for telephoto. They might even be made to work in concert!
But if I had to choose one system or the other - in-lens is the only real option.
I could possibly see the XT getting in-body IS. Besides Sony it is in the Oly Evolt 510 dSLR. There is more and more anti-shake in the P&S cameras now then ever and it makes sense to have it in a dSLR to bring the P&S people up to the dSLR market, they're use to anti-shake and camera stabilization.
I was going to go to an Olympus dSLR back when I was ready to make the big leap but noticed the price and variety of Oly lenses compared to Canon, that is why I am here today. I just saw the prices of the Sony lenses and it would make little sense for someone who is serious about photography to spend that kind of dollars for Sony lenses when the Canon ones are so much less expensive.
I don't know who is buying the Sony gear but it makes me want to read the Sony dSLR board at DPreview to find out what's up, which I will. DPreview review of the Sony dSLR is fairly positve especially for their first entry, but it is no camera to beat all other cameras.
For me, I like the IS in the big white lenses and would not want it in a dSLR, adds weight, cost and possible problems.
Just my thoughts and 2 cents,
Gil
Once again, the image circle projected by an EF-S lens is not large enough to accomodate in-body IS since the sensor will move out of the area covered by the lens. The same is true with a full-frame camera with EF lenses. There are only three viable alternatives - shrink the sensor size enough to allow the sensor movement to stay within the projected image circle, revamp the entire lens lineup to enlarge the projected image circle, or stick with the more effective lens-based IS system.
RDKirk wrote:
If Canon perceived in-body IS offerings from other companies as a serious threat (and there is no evidence that they do), it would be more cost effective for them to sell the 17-55 2.8 IS as a kit lens at a loss than to revamp their entire IS concept, strategy, and body design initiatives.
They are likely to be able to release their next DRebel and xxD cameras at low enough body prices to do that, perhaps even without a loss. And they may well be ready to produce a genuinely low-cost IS kit lens.
I believe that they already do - the 17-85 USM is relatively inexpensive, as is the 28-135 USM IS. I'd guess that they'd offer an IS version of the 18-55 kit lens (or some new "in-between" 17-70 IS or the like) for a decent price.
But the least economically favorable thing they could do would be to drop their R&D investment in lens IS technology at the low end where the profit margin is already razor thin...and it's not by any means certain that the low end players are a significant threat anyway.
I agree - there's no need to drop the investment in lens-based IS technology, particularly when it works so well, especially with the long lenses where it is most needed.
Dan Martin wrote:
I've said it before and I've said it again, Canon will not be putting a body based stabilizer in their SLRs. The 18-55 IS is in production and will be released with a new body at the end of the summer. I don't have any details about the body but the 18-55 IS and the 55-250 IS are confirmed.
You may be "knowledgeable" - whatever that means, but from a marketing perspective having been there in the product development end can emphatically state that you are highly shortsighted.
If you beleive that Canon does not have people working today on In-Body IS you are mistaken, and not really nearly as knowledgeable as you perceive yourself to be. I agree we are not likely to see it next week, but in the next few years it is all but assured. You can bank on that, as much as you do your current knowledge.
