>
> I normally carry a camera weighing 24 lbs so to
> me the IS lens is a relief to shoulder about.
and you're also as big as Paul Bunyon...
Cotty wrote:
> On 29/1/07, Tim Øsleby, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>
>> I'm simply asking
>> for first hand experiences. First hand experiences are a lot more worth than
>> defensive marketing.
>>
>
> I have no experience of in-body SR, and I only have experience of one
> lens with in-lens IS (20-200 2.8 L IS). From where I'm standing, the I
> like the IS because I can see with my own eyes that it's working,
> although it does use battery power, and the lens is what some would
> consider big and heavy. I normally carry a camera weighing 24 lbs so to
> me the IS lens is a relief to shoulder about. I like the IS and have it
> switched on as a default. It does what it says on the tin, and I can't
> fault it. Had it since summer of 2004 and it has not skipped a beat. I
> also have a 2X converter but use it only extremely rarely as I don't
> like the image degredation.
>
> I don't have any other IS lenses, although I sometimes wish the 24-70 I
> use a lot had it. I find no need for IS on wider lenses. I'm hoping to
> pick up a 24mm lens in the not-too-distant, and if I had a choice of one
> with IS or one without, I'd pick the latter.
>
> If the Darkside offers in-body IS, I would guess that it will be in the
> prosumer range and I have no plans for any more bodies within a couple
> of years. I am waiting for a fix to full-frame vignetting, and then I
> anticipate a full-frame body by about 2010.
>
> HTH
>
>
--
--
The more I know of men, the more I like my dog.
-- Anne Louise Germaine de Stael
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
