On 1/28/07 1:48 PM, "J. C. O'Connell", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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?
All true, but Canon failed to offer CCD shift. Others have been developing
it for years even during film era, anticipating its application when imaging
medium would become digital censor.
I am sure Canon could have done either way but they probably stuck to IS to
continue making large profit.
If price of their IS lenses come down significantly, then they can capture
more market or retain present level of sales.
I like IS and perhaps theirs have an edge over long FL lenses but those with
IS are of humongous size and weight.
Ken
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
