You'd think they'd put AFMA in it. It counts as a good user feature but really it also helps Canon increase user satisfaction by letting owners fix any minor manufacturing boo boos themselves.
Why wouldn't they do that? Otherwise most people with slightly out of whack lenses or bodies just suffer with it and tell people their Canon just wasn't very sharp. Maybe they buy a Pentax next time.
Then others have to deal with the hassle of sending their body and one favorite lens off for adjustment at Canon which is no fun for either the owner or for Canon, and it is all avoidable if they'd just include AFMA.
If the ketchup companies are smart enough to add "shake well before serving" to their labels, so that the user is more likely to have a positive experience with their condiments, why would a camera maker leave out AFMA?
I think 80% of Canon rebel users primarily use the 18-55mm, a 75-300mm, a 55-250mm, and then the 50mm f/1.8.
So the max aperture range is 3.5 to 5.6 for the first three lenses... and the 50mm is really quite soft from f/1.8 to f/2.8ish... So you will tend to stop down the 50...
Would yall say that rebel owners who have a good f/1.4 (or a 100L which has a really shallow depth of field) lens is probably around 10%. Maybe a 35L, the 100L, a 50L, etc.
I'd think 90% of the rebel market don't have a need for it... and probably another 5% wouldn't use it. I would want AFMA, but I suppose I'd be ok with afma being @ the X0D or higher.