Having watched Tony`s thinking on possible issues related to Nikons camera/lens production and where it might have been improved, it seems that there may well be room for improvement to an extent that some (like me) might think disappointing in that more recent output may present issues..?
The new Nikkor 24-70 f2.8 which as a lens seems not to be an obvious improvement other than that it includes VR with the disadvantage of more weight and a larger diameter front element...when compared to the 77mm of it`s predecessor which coincidentally(or not) is the same diameter as 70-200mm f2.8. The difference in cost of the old vs new 24-70 seems considerable and perhaps not easy to justify in terms of actual cost benefit analysis...?
What`s all this got to do with VR/IS ...? I wonder at the value of building in anti vibration technology to the sensor as opposed to the lens and how that might evolve... If sensor stabilisation was or became the equivalent or better than in lens stabilisation, then what value lenses like the new Nikkor 24-70 when compared with it`s predecessor....Hmm..?
In the same vein I ever look at the 14-24 f2.8 Nikkor and given the obvious move to engineer VR into lenses these days and my lack of skill to hold a camera really steady a VR option in that iconic lens would increase my temptation to own it... Though if any new Nikon body included sensor stabilisation, then the 14-24 as is, would perhaps be more useable in my hands...Hmm..?
Just thinking in type and claiming NO real understanding of VR or IS technology.