Add to this IS in camera won't work with full frame sensors as most lenses image circle is not big enough.
As for the stabilized image in the viewfinder - how important is that? If image is so shaky you cannot follow your subject it's likely the IS can't help either. Also, rotation has vertical and horizontal components, so in body IS can compensate as well. Forward/backward movements have no impact for anything else than macro. With regard to AS reliability, one can go to Konika-Minolta site, follow a link to A2 and watch a small animation with a bare AS in action. It involves moving the data paths as well and indeed the amplitude is worrying. Time will tell how reliable is Minolta's solution. I can only hope they succeed and restore some competition in the DSLR arena. Servus, Alin Leon wrote: LA> Some thoughts I have on the whole IS thing. LA> I'm concerned about the conductors which transmit the data from the LA> sensor (which will move to do the image stabilizing) to the rest of the LA> electronics (which don't move). There will be upto several hundred LA> small adjustments during each exposure using IS. these movements LA> stress the conductors and eventually they will fail. This will result LA> in the loss of entire rows data from the sensor. LA> In lens IS can give you an IS image in the viewfinder. IS in the LA> camera can't. LA> In camera IS needs to move the sensor assembly, but in lens IS pivots LA> the lens element around a central point - not moving it as such just LA> changing the direction it is pointing (less effort involved than moving LA> the whole lens). LA> IS only adjusts for vertical and horizontal movement, not rotation or LA> forward/backward movement. LA> My problem is more often moving subjects than camera shake, so IS LA> doesn't mean a lot to me. LA> Leon LA> http://www.bluering.org.au LA> http://www.bluering.org.au/leon
