what makes you think that the Canon system or any other IS system in a modern camera isn't backed by the same set of electronics? the Olympus gyroscopes are much too tiny to control the moving element themselves and feed into an electromechanical system just like the Canon and Minolta ones do. why do you think the Canon system is remarked about as a big power drain when it is enabled? the pendulum in the Canon system is way too small to move any correcting element by itself. what do the electronic mode switches on the Canon IS lenses for different modes of IS otherwise do then?
Herb.... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Reese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 8:42 AM Subject: Re: IS in Pentax *istD (was Re: canon vs pentax) > It is still my opinion that placing little accelerometers in the camera body > to measure the amount and direction of movement and then operating other > devices to counter that movement would be a kludge. The movement would have > to be calculated and predictions made on future movement to make the > adjustments in real time. IMO making adjustments for movement that already > occured would result in the sensor alignment always being slightly behind. > Use of gyroscopes to provide a steadying lens element is a far more elegant > solution to the problem.
