Do you know what those very early DSLRS cost? More than a new car. They were mostly speciality studio items if I recall correctly and I think some of them had to be tethered to a PC. There were hardly any out out there at all in 1995, so I dont think its fair to say that the early IS canon lenses were developed for them at all. Nearly everybody using Canon EOS lenses at that time was using them on 35mm film bodies, there were virtually zero digital bodies to justify IS Lens development and production. jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 3:44 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS? Yep, because apart from the actually rather expensive 75-300, all those $5000-$10000 IS telephoto's were not extremely expensive, esoteric, nearly 100% commercial items, not mainsteam photo market items. Yeah, just everybody has a 600/4 tele. -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: > OK, so change my post to before CANON DSLRS existed. And > all those early DSLRS were extremely expensive, > esoteric, nearly 100% commercial items, not mainsteam photo market > items like film cameras were back in the mid 90's. My point is these > early IS lenses canon put out were not aimed at the esoteric, > virtually no population DSLRS at the time of their release, they were > primarily for the film market obviously. > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Adam Maas > Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 3:03 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS? > > > Nope, > > The first DSLR (Kodak DCS100 based on the F3HP) was introduced > commercially in 1991. > > The first 35mm camera with IS (A Nikon VR P&S, can't recall the model) > was introduced 3 years later in 1994. Canon IS lenses would show up a > year later in the form of the craptacular 75-300 IS USM. The first > really useful IS lens was introduced in 1997 (300 f4L IS USM) and the > super teles would show up in 1999, same year as Nikon's D1, which began > the modern era of DSLR's and the end of the early Kodak DSLR era. > > Canon's first in-house DSLR, the D30, showed up less than a year after > the introduction of the full-line of IS Super-Teles. Kodak did make a EF > > mount DSLR prior to that, in fact the Canon mount DCS-1 was introduced > the same year as the 75-300 IS USM lens(1995). > > -Adam > > > J. C. O'Connell 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? 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
