I think you guys are forgetting the fact that Canon introduced
IS ("in-lenses") long before DSLRs even existed and you cant even
do "in-body" image stabilization with film cameras. So there
was NO debate at the time which was better, "in-lenses" was
infinately better at the time, because "in-body" was impossible
with film cameras. Cut them a little slack, huh?
jco-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of K.Takeshita Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 9:00 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS? On 1/28/07 8:41 AM, "Cory Papenfuss", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think Canon is going to have to eat their hat WRT in-body SR. "Rumour" says that's exactly what Canon is contemplating. Who knows? But it indicates that both methods are toss-up. Canon can no longer charge high price for IS lenses for sure. > They may be able to fake it by making a cheapie kit lens with IS, but > I think the market will desire in-body SR. Again, "rumour" says that this is the approach Nikon is contemplating, i.e., trickling down their VR onto even cheaper lenses. Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
