Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-02-01 Thread P. J. Alling
Cotty wrote:
 On 28/1/07, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:

   
 If you're going to waste your time speculating, do it on a more useful 
 issue like the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
 

 Mark! 

 D'oh!

 Ain't no angels on this list brother.

   
Mark!

-- 
--

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


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-02-01 Thread P. J. Alling

 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


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-02-01 Thread Kenneth Waller
 Ain't no angels on this list brother

But there is a pin head or two.

Kenneth Waller

- Original Message - 
From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Subject: Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?


 Cotty wrote:
 On 28/1/07, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:

   
 If you're going to waste your time speculating, do it on a more useful 
 issue like the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
 

 Mark! 

 D'oh!

 Ain't no angels on this list brother.

   
 Mark!
 
 -- 
 --
 
 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

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-31 Thread P. J. Alling
Seems that's the argument for the much maligned aperture simulator...

(heading for the hills now,,,)

George Sinos wrote:
 Just tagging onto the thread here to toss in my two cents.

 I guess this is one of those things that is a pretty simple decision
 for me.  Even if I had a bag full of expensive IS lenses I'd want to
 have SR in the body for all of those plain old every day lenses.

 If I have SR in the body it works with every regular lens.  I can turn
 it off if I want to mount an expensive super-duper tuned IS lens.

 The two can co-exist.

 This is purely a marketing problem.  If you put it in the body, it
 will be very difficult to sell lenses that have the feature.

 See you later, gs
 http://georgesphotos.net

   


-- 
--

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


RE: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-30 Thread Tim Øsleby
Thank you Marnie and others for putting up with me, and for trying to
provide me with an answer. 


Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 30. januar 2007 02:30
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

In a message dated 1/28/2007 4:07:35 P.M.  Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Perhaps I'd better add a few  words about why I ask this question. 
I've read a review that almost quotes  the Canon marketing department on
this
issue. I'm ok with that, but when the  author serves this as the truth I
react. So now I have a debate going in a  Norwegian forum about this issue.
BTW. I didn't start it, some other guy  questioned the quoting first. 

Speaking of angels. I'm not on a crusade  in this issue. I'm simply asking
for first hand experiences. First hand  experiences are a lot more worth
than
defensive marketing.  


Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain  Norwegian)

===
Well, speaking from experience, Canon IS lenses  work very well. It's
rescued 
many a shot.

But since I haven't tried  Pentax AS (yet), I can make no comments on that.

Marnie aka Doe :-)  


-- 
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


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-29 Thread Cotty
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

-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-29 Thread graywolf
Actually, it was labeled as the DCS no number, people started referring 
to it as the DSC-100 after the DSC-200 replaced it. It was a whopping 
1.3MP camera with, you guessed it, a 1.5x sensor just like your pentax.

Adam Maas wrote:
 Nope,
 
 The first DSLR (Kodak DCS100 based on the F3HP) was introduced 
 commercially in 1991.
 
 The first 35mm camera with IS (A Nikon VR PS, 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


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-29 Thread Christian
Tim Øsleby wrote:
 Perhaps I'd better add a few words about why I ask this question. 
 I've read a review that almost quotes the Canon marketing department on this
 issue. I'm ok with that, but when the author serves this as the truth I
 react. So now I have a debate going in a Norwegian forum about this issue.
 BTW. I didn't start it, some other guy questioned the quoting first. 


Pentax's sensor-based SR is better.  Nikon and Canon are evil and 
covering up for their inability to produce the in-camera based system by 
putting it down and telling the public that the lens based system is 
better.  Does that help validate your choice of camera brand?

My point is: why do you care what some crappy reviewer has to say?  It 
seems to me that users of any camera brand have this massive inferiority 
complex and need their purchases validated.  My digi-rebel using friend 
constantly proves to me that the noise on his camera is less than 
mine.  He is proving to me all the time that the 17-40 L lens is 
better than the 16-35 L because he owns the 17-40.  He also loves to 
prove that his APS-sensored rebel is better than a full-frame 5D, etc, 
etc.

Personally, I use what I got and just try to make pictures.

-- 

Christian
http://photography.skofteland.net

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


RE: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-29 Thread Tim Øsleby
I have absolutely no problem choosing camera brand Christian. I'm a Fuji man
and will be forever. 

Seriously. My decision is made. I'll just have to wait a couple of weeks
until my account is refilled, and off course until Pentax is able to refill
the Norwegian market. I might by from France, I've found a good price there.
That I haven't decided yet. 

I'm not trying to prove that Pentax is best. I'm just provoked because
reviewers seem to simply echo the Canon marketing department without
thinking. Why am I provoked? Because reviewers are influential, reviewers
and the camera pushers in the shops are those who decides what average Joe
buys. I want my brand to survive. Perhaps I'm a fanboy? 


Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Christian
Sent: 29. januar 2007 19:00
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

Tim Øsleby wrote:
 Perhaps I'd better add a few words about why I ask this question. 
 I've read a review that almost quotes the Canon marketing department on
this
 issue. I'm ok with that, but when the author serves this as the truth I
 react. So now I have a debate going in a Norwegian forum about this issue.
 BTW. I didn't start it, some other guy questioned the quoting first. 


Pentax's sensor-based SR is better.  Nikon and Canon are evil and 
covering up for their inability to produce the in-camera based system by 
putting it down and telling the public that the lens based system is 
better.  Does that help validate your choice of camera brand?

My point is: why do you care what some crappy reviewer has to say?  It 
seems to me that users of any camera brand have this massive inferiority 
complex and need their purchases validated.  My digi-rebel using friend 
constantly proves to me that the noise on his camera is less than 
mine.  He is proving to me all the time that the 17-40 L lens is 
better than the 16-35 L because he owns the 17-40.  He also loves to 
prove that his APS-sensored rebel is better than a full-frame 5D, etc, 
etc.

Personally, I use what I got and just try to make pictures.

-- 

Christian
http://photography.skofteland.net

-- 
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


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-29 Thread Godfrey DiGiorgi

On Jan 29, 2007, at 10:00 AM, Christian wrote:

 ... Personally, I use what I got and just try to make pictures.

:-) Sanity can prevail. :-)

G

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-29 Thread Cotty
On 29/1/07, Christian, discombobulated, unleashed:

Personally, I use what I got and just try to make pictures.

Amen!

-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-29 Thread Mark Roberts
Christian wrote:

Personally, I use what I got and just try to make pictures.

That's not really in keeping with the spirit of Internet discussion 
groups, is it?
g


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-29 Thread Eactivist
In a message dated 1/28/2007 4:07:35 P.M.  Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Perhaps I'd better add a few  words about why I ask this question. 
I've read a review that almost quotes  the Canon marketing department on this
issue. I'm ok with that, but when the  author serves this as the truth I
react. So now I have a debate going in a  Norwegian forum about this issue.
BTW. I didn't start it, some other guy  questioned the quoting first. 

Speaking of angels. I'm not on a crusade  in this issue. I'm simply asking
for first hand experiences. First hand  experiences are a lot more worth than
defensive marketing.  


Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain  Norwegian)

===
Well, speaking from experience, Canon IS lenses  work very well. It's rescued 
many a shot.

But since I haven't tried  Pentax AS (yet), I can make no comments on that.

Marnie aka Doe :-)  


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-28 Thread Tim Øsleby
The market (many at the market) says that camera based SR is best at short
focal lengths, and lens based IS is best at long focal length. 

What do you who have used SR for a while say? Truth or myth? 
We have had the theoretical debate, but what does practical use tell us?


Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
 




-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-28 Thread Cory Papenfuss
 The market (many at the market) says that camera based SR is best at short
 focal lengths, and lens based IS is best at long focal length.

 What do you who have used SR for a while say? Truth or myth?
 We have had the theoretical debate, but what does practical use tell us?


That sentiment probably stems from a white paper that Canon put 
out trying to poo-poo in-body SR.  I'd say the best way to describe it is 
that in-lens is without a doubt the best way to do it (since the lens is 
designed to have it work the best).  It also happens to be the most 
expensive way to do it.  Having it in-body makes EVERY lens a SR lens.

For in-body SR, long lenses require lots of movement from the 
sensor, so it's conceivable the maximum benefit is smaller.  All I can say 
is after playing with a friend's K100D and a Tele-Tak 400/5.6, there's no 
way in hell I'd get a clean shot hand-held at 1/10sec without it.  I'll be 
buying a SR camera in the not-too-distant future.

I think Canon is going to have to eat their hat WRT in-body SR. 
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.

-Cory

-- 

*
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA   *
* Electrical Engineering*
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University   *
*


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-28 Thread K.Takeshita
On 1/28/07 8:26 AM, Tim Øsleby, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 What do you who have used SR for a while say? Truth or myth?
 We have had the theoretical debate, but what does practical use tell us?

I have both.  Comparison between CCD shift type and in-lens type is still
being hotly debated everywhere.  But that's not you are asking, I believe.

I would think that in-lens IS might have an edge over CCD shift type for
longer FL, mostly because in-lens method gives you essentially a TTL image
IS, i.e., you can see how image is being stabilized.  This would be an
advantage in steadying a long telephoto during focusing.

Ken


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-28 Thread K.Takeshita
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


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-28 Thread William Robb

- Original Message - 
From: Tim Øsleby
Subject: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?


 The market (many at the market) says that camera based SR is best at short
 focal lengths, and lens based IS is best at long focal length.

 What do you who have used SR for a while say? Truth or myth?
 We have had the theoretical debate, but what does practical use tell us?



I'd like to know which lens based SR lenses there are in the 400-600mm 
range.

William Robb 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-28 Thread Godfrey DiGiorgi

On Jan 28, 2007, at 6:01 AM, William Robb wrote:

 The market (many at the market) says that camera based SR is best  
 at short
 focal lengths, and lens based IS is best at long focal length.

 What do you who have used SR for a while say? Truth or myth?
 We have had the theoretical debate, but what does practical use  
 tell us?

 I'd like to know which lens based SR lenses there are in the 400-600mm
 range.

Canon EF 400 f/2.8L IS
Canon EF 600 f/4L IS

G


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


RE: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-28 Thread Tim Øsleby
I don't follow you now. Language barrier?


Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
William Robb
Sent: 28. januar 2007 15:01
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?


- Original Message - 
From: Tim Øsleby
Subject: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?


 The market (many at the market) says that camera based SR is best at short
 focal lengths, and lens based IS is best at long focal length.

 What do you who have used SR for a while say? Truth or myth?
 We have had the theoretical debate, but what does practical use tell us?



I'd like to know which lens based SR lenses there are in the 400-600mm 
range.

William Robb 


-- 
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


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-28 Thread Adam Maas
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
 On Jan 28, 2007, at 6:01 AM, William Robb wrote:
 
 The market (many at the market) says that camera based SR is best  
 at short
 focal lengths, and lens based IS is best at long focal length.

 What do you who have used SR for a while say? Truth or myth?
 We have had the theoretical debate, but what does practical use  
 tell us?
 I'd like to know which lens based SR lenses there are in the 400-600mm
 range.
 
 Canon EF 400 f/2.8L IS
 Canon EF 600 f/4L IS
 
 G
 

Nikon 200-400 f4 VR (I don't consider the 80-400 a real contender at 
400mm, but  the 200-400 certainly is).

Nikon's way behind on long VR primes. Ironic, since the first 
lens-stabilized setup to hit the market was a Nikon PS.

-Adam


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-28 Thread Boris Liberman
If it ain't broken, don't fix it ;-).

The lens based IS can be fine tuned and specially tailored for the
given lens. Camera based SR is a general solution. As such it is
probably more limited. However, you can still mount your K 200/4 and
have SR handily available.

Frankly, I don't care either way. It is there on my K10D and I use it
*from time to time*. It works, that's all that matters.

Cheers.

Boris


On 1/28/07, Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 The market (many at the market) says that camera based SR is best at short
 focal lengths, and lens based IS is best at long focal length.

 What do you who have used SR for a while say? Truth or myth?
 We have had the theoretical debate, but what does practical use tell us?


 Tim
 Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)





 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net



-- 
Boris

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-28 Thread Godfrey DiGiorgi
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


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-28 Thread William Robb

- Original Message - 
From: Boris Liberman
Subject: Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?


If it ain't broken, don't fix it ;-).

The lens based IS can be fine tuned and specially tailored for the
given lens. Camera based SR is a general solution. As such it is
probably more limited. However, you can still mount your K 200/4 and
have SR handily available.

Frankly, I don't care either way. It is there on my K10D and I use it
*from time to time*. It works, that's all that matters.

The not so nice thing about taking photography away from photographers and 
putting it into the hands of flakes is that the equipment can no longer just 
take pictures.
There's too many people out there with half assed test benches taking 
pictures of nothing.

William Robb 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-28 Thread William Robb

- Original Message - 
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi 
Subject: Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?



 I'd like to know which lens based SR lenses there are in the 400-600mm
 range.
 
 Canon EF 400 f/2.8L IS
 Canon EF 600 f/4L IS

A whole two?
Gee.

William Robb

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-28 Thread William Robb

- Original Message - 
From: Tim Øsleby
Subject: RE: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?


I don't follow you now. Language barrier?


I was intimating that the best system is the one that exists in usable form.
If you want SR on a 400-600mm lens, you either bust a nut carrying around 
big Canon glass, or use Pentax.
I've handled a 600/4 lens. It's bigger than I am comfortable with. I like my 
smaller 600/5.6 much better.

William Robb 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-28 Thread Boris Liberman
I have to agree with you, sir William ;-).

On 1/28/07, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 The not so nice thing about taking photography away from photographers and
 putting it into the hands of flakes is that the equipment can no longer just
 take pictures.
 There's too many people out there with half assed test benches taking
 pictures of nothing.

-- 
Boris

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-28 Thread Adam Maas
William Robb wrote:
 - Original Message - 
 From: Godfrey DiGiorgi 
 Subject: Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?
 
 
 
 I'd like to know which lens based SR lenses there are in the 400-600mm
 range.
 Canon EF 400 f/2.8L IS
 Canon EF 600 f/4L IS
 
 A whole two?
 Gee.
 
 William Robb
 

4 actually, there's also the 400/4 DO IS USM and the 500/4 IS USM.

-Adam

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-28 Thread Godfrey DiGiorgi

On Jan 28, 2007, at 7:31 AM, Adam Maas wrote:

 I'd like to know which lens based SR lenses there are in the  
 400-600mm
 range.
 Canon EF 400 f/2.8L IS
 Canon EF 600 f/4L IS

 A whole two?
 Gee.

 William Robb


 4 actually, there's also the 400/4 DO IS USM and the 500/4 IS USM.

Yes, sorry ... my search was insufficient.

(I hardly ever use much over 135mm, and even that pretty rarely.  
Maybe the DA50-200 will change that a little ... but I doubt it.)

G


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


RE: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-28 Thread J. C. O'Connell
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


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-28 Thread K.Takeshita
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


RE: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-28 Thread Tim Øsleby
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. 


Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim
Øsleby
Sent: 28. januar 2007 14:27
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

The market (many at the market) says that camera based SR is best at short
focal lengths, and lens based IS is best at long focal length. 

What do you who have used SR for a while say? Truth or myth? 
We have had the theoretical debate, but what does practical use tell us?


Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
 




-- 
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


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-28 Thread George Sinos
Just tagging onto the thread here to toss in my two cents.

I guess this is one of those things that is a pretty simple decision
for me.  Even if I had a bag full of expensive IS lenses I'd want to
have SR in the body for all of those plain old every day lenses.

If I have SR in the body it works with every regular lens.  I can turn
it off if I want to mount an expensive super-duper tuned IS lens.

The two can co-exist.

This is purely a marketing problem.  If you put it in the body, it
will be very difficult to sell lenses that have the feature.

See you later, gs
http://georgesphotos.net

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-28 Thread Adam Maas
Nope,

The first DSLR (Kodak DCS100 based on the F3HP) was introduced 
commercially in 1991.

The first 35mm camera with IS (A Nikon VR PS, 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


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-28 Thread Godfrey DiGiorgi
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


RE: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-28 Thread J. C. O'Connell
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 PS, 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


RE: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-28 Thread Tim Øsleby
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


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-28 Thread Adam Maas
Yep,

because apart from the actually rather expensive 75-300, all those 
$5000-$1 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 PS, 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


RE: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-28 Thread J. C. O'Connell
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-$1 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 PS, 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


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-28 Thread Digital Image Studio
On 29/01/07, Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 The market (many at the market) says that camera based SR is best at short
 focal lengths, and lens based IS is best at long focal length.

 What do you who have used SR for a while say? Truth or myth?
 We have had the theoretical debate, but what does practical use tell us?

There was a thread along these same lines on dpreview that may be of
interest to you:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036message=21749550

-- 
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-28 Thread Digital Image Studio
On 29/01/07, George Sinos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Just tagging onto the thread here to toss in my two cents.

 I guess this is one of those things that is a pretty simple decision
 for me.  Even if I had a bag full of expensive IS lenses I'd want to
 have SR in the body for all of those plain old every day lenses.

 If I have SR in the body it works with every regular lens.  I can turn
 it off if I want to mount an expensive super-duper tuned IS lens.

 The two can co-exist.

 This is purely a marketing problem.  If you put it in the body, it
 will be very difficult to sell lenses that have the feature.

Absolutely, both systems have their advantages and limitations. But
the first of the big two to wrestle the appropriate patents from the
little guys and implement both systems (and cleverly market the
advantages of both) will be the winner.

-- 
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-28 Thread Paul Stenquist
I recall when I was on a television shoot in the mid nineties, a  
still photographer showed up to do a related job for the same client.  
He brought the first Nikon digital and his Nikon F4 film cameras. He  
used the digital just to show the clients what he was going to shoot  
-- on his PC. Then he shot the real photo on film.
Paul
On Jan 28, 2007, at 4:00 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:

 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-$1 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 PS, 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


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-28 Thread Cory Papenfuss
 The lens based IS can be fine tuned and specially tailored for the
 given lens. Camera based SR is a general solution. As such it is

Another example of being theoretically/practically better as 
in-lens is lens distortion issues.  Particularly on wide lenses, be it 
barrel distortion on a fisheye, or stretched rectilinear distortion on 
wide normal lenses, these seem like they could cause problems with 
sensor-moving SR systems.  A dedicated lens could work out a better way.

Still... they don't have to be an all-or-nothing thing.  Esoteric 
lenses (really long, really wide, etc) couild do best with in-lens.  Just 
turn off the in-body.  With every other non-weird (or non-IS) lens, use 
in-body.

-Cory
  --

*
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA   *
* Electrical Engineering*
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University   *
*


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-28 Thread Mark Roberts
Tim Øsleby wrote:

The market (many at the market) says that camera based SR is best at 
short
focal lengths, and lens based IS is best at long focal length. 

What do you who have used SR for a while say? Truth or myth? 
We have had the theoretical debate, but what does practical use tell us?

It's a useless debate, quite similar to the CCD/CMOS debate in 
futility: Even if you oversimplified issues sufficiently to make a 
simple answer possible, it would change in a few months because both 
systems are being continually improved by their makers.

If you're going to waste your time speculating, do it on a more useful 
issue like the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-28 Thread Cotty
On 28/1/07, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:

If you're going to waste your time speculating, do it on a more useful 
issue like the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

Mark! 

D'oh!

Ain't no angels on this list brother.

-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


RE: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-28 Thread Tim Øsleby
Perhaps I'd better add a few words about why I ask this question. 
I've read a review that almost quotes the Canon marketing department on this
issue. I'm ok with that, but when the author serves this as the truth I
react. So now I have a debate going in a Norwegian forum about this issue.
BTW. I didn't start it, some other guy questioned the quoting first. 

Speaking of angels. I'm not on a crusade in this issue. I'm simply asking
for first hand experiences. First hand experiences are a lot more worth than
defensive marketing. 


Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark
Roberts
Sent: 29. januar 2007 00:01
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

Tim Øsleby wrote:

The market (many at the market) says that camera based SR is best at 
short
focal lengths, and lens based IS is best at long focal length. 

What do you who have used SR for a while say? Truth or myth? 
We have had the theoretical debate, but what does practical use tell us?

It's a useless debate, quite similar to the CCD/CMOS debate in 
futility: Even if you oversimplified issues sufficiently to make a 
simple answer possible, it would change in a few months because both 
systems are being continually improved by their makers.

If you're going to waste your time speculating, do it on a more useful 
issue like the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
-- 
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


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-28 Thread David J Brooks
I'v shot quite a bit with my Nikon 70-200VR F2.8 and not a lot yet
with the K10D and SR.

I still see fuzzy shots with the 70-200, so its not 100%. I'll bet the
K10D will have some problems to.

But on camera SR is nice when using light weight, smaller lenses.

In winter i put the 70-200 VR in the back of the truck for weight
during snow and ice storms.

Works like a charm.:-)

Dave

On 1/28/07, Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Perhaps I'd better add a few words about why I ask this question.
 I've read a review that almost quotes the Canon marketing department on this
 issue. I'm ok with that, but when the author serves this as the truth I
 react. So now I have a debate going in a Norwegian forum about this issue.
 BTW. I didn't start it, some other guy questioned the quoting first.

 Speaking of angels. I'm not on a crusade in this issue. I'm simply asking
 for first hand experiences. First hand experiences are a lot more worth than
 defensive marketing.


 Tim
 Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)


 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark
 Roberts
 Sent: 29. januar 2007 00:01
 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 Subject: Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

 Tim Øsleby wrote:

 The market (many at the market) says that camera based SR is best at
 short
 focal lengths, and lens based IS is best at long focal length.
 
 What do you who have used SR for a while say? Truth or myth?
 We have had the theoretical debate, but what does practical use tell us?

 It's a useless debate, quite similar to the CCD/CMOS debate in
 futility: Even if you oversimplified issues sufficiently to make a
 simple answer possible, it would change in a few months because both
 systems are being continually improved by their makers.

 If you're going to waste your time speculating, do it on a more useful
 issue like the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
 --
 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



-- 
Equine Photography
www.caughtinmotion.com
Ontario Canada

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?

2007-01-28 Thread David Savage
At 11:56 PM 28/01/2007, William Robb wrote:
There's too many people out there with half assed test benches taking
pictures of nothing.

There is nothing half assed about my nothing pictures thank you very much.

Dave :-) 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net