Canon feels their “per lens” strategy and targeting specific lens for stabilization is better than “one size fits all” IBIS.
When AF was first evolving, Nikon decided to place the AF in the body. Canon felt individual AF in each lens, with the motor optimized for the torque needed for each lens (e.g. - 300/2.8 versus 50/1.4) was superior. Guess who won that battle? I feel IBIS is something Sony fan boys have pushed because they have it. In reality, from what I’ve read, there’s no real difference. But I DO feel IS needed for 200mm will be inherently different from what’s needed for 35mm. I don’t believe (and of course I could be wrong) that you can have IS optimized for both. It’s more like “sort of good” for both. But, hey, I guess better to have some IS than none at all.
As for the card slot, 100% of the time on jobs, I never use a 2nd card. I use both card slots for my own personal shooting maybe 2% of the time. If anything, I would have preferred a CF or CFast slot. I hate SD cards. I own about 40 CF cards (32GB down to 4GB) which I bring on shoots. I treat a card like a roll of film, so each new shot has its own card. If something goes wrong (since 2001, I’ve only had about 5 or 6 cards go bad) I don’t want it taking the rest of my shots. The prospect of bulking up on SD cards bothers me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk