Yep, you did, and I noticed ;-) Thank you.
Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: 28. januar 2007 21:20 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS? On Jan 28, 2007, at 11:16 AM, Tim Øsleby wrote: > Guys. What you say is probably valid, but it is a repetition of the > theoretical debate. What do you who have tried both in body and in > lens say > from a real life point of view? > Pardon my bluntness. If I had used my own tongue, I could and would > have > said this smoother. Well, I posted this earlier: "I've had two Panasonics, one Canon with in-lens image stabilization, and one Konica Minolta, one Pentax with in-body stabilization. With the Panasonic FZ10, the zoom range was ~35mm to 410mm FoV (35mm terms); the Canon I had 70-200 and 300mm IS lenses and a 1.4x teleconverter. With the KM A2, I had 28mm to 340mm effective FoV (with 1.7x teleconverter), and with the Pentax K10D I've tested up to 600mm (F100-300 plus 2x-S teleconverter). For all intents and purposes, the practical advantages of in-lens and in-body stabilization have been the same with all of them. Theoretical considerations don't matter much." G -- 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
