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