Re: Pentax Image Stabilization (WAS: RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS)
På 23. okt. 2004 kl. 00.07 skrev Pål Jensen: Dag wrote: From what I see from a quick look at the claims neither of these are general enough to give an absolute control over anti vibration, so you can´t conclude that Nikon or Canon uses them. REPLY: I have never claimed that Pentax control absolutely some aspect of IS. In fact from reading the patents nobody seem to! Who is using it (Nikon and Canon) can be read from Nikon and Canons patents on IS lenses that all refer to the Pentax patent. Referring to does not mean infringing, references made by the patent offices are categorized as very relevant, relevant in combination with some other publication, or relevant as background information, and in the US they also list all the publications referred to by the applicant. So both Canon and Nikon could have found a way to make it work that Pentax didn´t, which isn´t covered by the Pentax patents. DagT
Re: Pentax Image Stabilization (WAS: RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS)
Dag wrote: >From what I see from a quick look at the claims neither of these are general enough >to give an absolute control over anti vibration, so you can´t conclude that Nikon or >Canon uses them. REPLY: I have never claimed that Pentax control absolutely some aspect of IS. In fact from reading the patents nobody seem to! Who is using it (Nikon and Canon) can be read from Nikon and Canons patents on IS lenses that all refer to the Pentax patent. Pål
Re: Pentax Image Stabilization (WAS: RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS)
På 22. okt. 2004 kl. 21.13 skrev Pål Jensen: You're right! I should know :-) I haven't time to check all the patents (again) but these are some Pentax IS patents: US patent No: 5,039,211 (Zoom lens capable of image blur compensation); 5,583,597 (Blur correcting apparatus and method for camera); 4,996,545 Apparatus for correcting blurred image of camera using angular acceleration sensor and angular acceleration sensor) etc. From what I see from a quick look at the claims neither of these are general enough to give an absolute control over anti vibration, so you can´t conclude that Nikon or Canon uses them. They do, however, show that Pentax has been preparing for the implementation of anti vibration. Several things may have happened later. Somebody else may control the wider and earlier patents, or Pentax´solution may simply not work. We don´t known, but the patents should give us some hope. I´ll try to find some time to do some more advanced searches. DagT
Re: Pentax Image Stabilization (WAS: RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS)
I assure you, it has nothing to do with us :-) Using a laser for illumination has the disadvantage that you get speckle noise. You can see that if you direct a laser toward a surface. The illumination is not smooth, but has a pattern called speckles. The speckles are stochastic and disappear if you sum up slightly different images, e.g. slightly different times of a moving object. DagT På 22. okt. 2004 kl. 21.16 skrev Pål Jensen: Opps this doesn't seem to be a Pentax patent after all but it does turn up when searching fro Pentax. ...and what the hell is this one? No. 6,739,511 METHOD OF SPECKLE-NOISE PATTERN REDUCTION AND APPARATUS THEREFOR BASED ON REDUCING THE TEMPORAL-COHERENCE OF THE PLANAR LASER ILLUMINATION BEAM BEFORE IT ILLUMINATES THE TARGET OBJECT BY APPLYING TEMPORAL PHASE MODULATION TECHNIQUES DURING THE TRANSMISSION OF THE PLIB TOWARDS THE TARGET Abstract A planar laser illumination and imaging (PLLIM) based camera system capable of producing digital images with reduced levels of speckle-pattern noise. The PLIIM based camera system comprises a planar laser illumination array (PLIA) including a plurality of laser diodes for producing and projecting a planar laser illumination beam (PLIB), so as to illuminate an object as it is moving past said PLIIM based camera system. An image formation and detection (IFD) module is provided having a image detection array and imaging forming optics for providing the image detection array with a field of view (FOV). The PLIB and FOV are arranged in a coplanar relationship along the working range of the PLIIM based camera system so that the PLIB illuminates primarily within the FOV of the IFD module. A speckle-pattern noise reduction subsystem is integrated with the PLIA, for reducing the temporal-coherence of said planar laser illumination beam (PLIB) before the PLIB illuminates a target obje! ct. The speckle-pattern noise reduction subsystem carries out a temporal phase modulation technique during the transmission of the PLIB towards the target, so that the object is illuminated with a temporally coherent-reduced planar laser illumination beam (PLIB) and numerous substantially different time-varying speckle-noise patterns are produced at the image detection array over the photo-integration time period thereof. The numerous substantially different time-varying speckle-noise patterns are detected at the image detection array over the photo-integration time period, and the detected speckle-noise patterns are temporally averaged at said image detection array during the photo-integration time period thereof. As a result of such temporal averaging, the RMS power of observable speckle-noise patterns is reduced at the image detection array. By virtue of the present invention, it is now possible to enjoy the benefits of using laser-based illumination during high-speed im! aging operations, without the adverse effects associated with speckle- pattern noise. Huh??
Re: Pentax Image Stabilization (WAS: RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS)
Opps this doesn't seem to be a Pentax patent after all but it does turn up when searching fro Pentax. ...and what the hell is this one? No. 6,739,511 METHOD OF SPECKLE-NOISE PATTERN REDUCTION AND APPARATUS THEREFOR BASED ON REDUCING THE TEMPORAL-COHERENCE OF THE PLANAR LASER ILLUMINATION BEAM BEFORE IT ILLUMINATES THE TARGET OBJECT BY APPLYING TEMPORAL PHASE MODULATION TECHNIQUES DURING THE TRANSMISSION OF THE PLIB TOWARDS THE TARGET Abstract A planar laser illumination and imaging (PLLIM) based camera system capable of producing digital images with reduced levels of speckle-pattern noise. The PLIIM based camera system comprises a planar laser illumination array (PLIA) including a plurality of laser diodes for producing and projecting a planar laser illumination beam (PLIB), so as to illuminate an object as it is moving past said PLIIM based camera system. An image formation and detection (IFD) module is provided having a image detection array and imaging forming optics for providing the image detection array with a field of view (FOV). The PLIB and FOV are arranged in a coplanar relationship along the working range of the PLIIM based camera system so that the PLIB illuminates primarily within the FOV of the IFD module. A speckle-pattern noise reduction subsystem is integrated with the PLIA, for reducing the temporal-coherence of said planar laser illumination beam (PLIB) before the PLIB illuminates a target obje! ct. The speckle-pattern noise reduction subsystem carries out a temporal phase modulation technique during the transmission of the PLIB towards the target, so that the object is illuminated with a temporally coherent-reduced planar laser illumination beam (PLIB) and numerous substantially different time-varying speckle-noise patterns are produced at the image detection array over the photo-integration time period thereof. The numerous substantially different time-varying speckle-noise patterns are detected at the image detection array over the photo-integration time period, and the detected speckle-noise patterns are temporally averaged at said image detection array during the photo-integration time period thereof. As a result of such temporal averaging, the RMS power of observable speckle-noise patterns is reduced at the image detection array. By virtue of the present invention, it is now possible to enjoy the benefits of using laser-based illumination during high-speed im! aging operations, without the adverse effects associated with speckle- pattern noise. Huh??
Re: Pentax Image Stabilization (WAS: RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS)
Dag wrote: The last sentence can´t be correct. The availability of patent specifications have been increasing the last few years. You could try such databases as: REPLY: You're right! I haven't time to check all the patents (again) but these are some Pentax IS patents: US patent No: 5,039,211 (Zoom lens capable of image blur compensation); 5,583,597 (Blur correcting apparatus and method for camera); 4,996,545 Apparatus for correcting blurred image of camera using angular acceleration sensor and angular acceleration sensor) etc.. I don't think these are the patents I refered to (I cannot find the telephoto patent) as they included the complete lens diagram. The Pentax patent No. 5,039,211 is used by both Nikon and Canon in their IS patents (along with other Pentax patents). This one is interesting: an IS converter!: 6,069,736 Anti-vibration lens attachment Abstract An anti-vibration lens attachment which is detachably attached to and between a photographing lens and a camera body includes an anti-vibration lens system having at least one correction lens group which is movable in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis, wherein an image formed by the photographing lens system is inverted at least once and is formed again on an image forming surface of the camera body by the anti-vibration lens system. The anti-vibration lens system includes at least six positive lens elements and at least two negative lens elements. ...and what the hell is this one? No. 6,739,511 METHOD OF SPECKLE-NOISE PATTERN REDUCTION AND APPARATUS THEREFOR BASED ON REDUCING THE TEMPORAL-COHERENCE OF THE PLANAR LASER ILLUMINATION BEAM BEFORE IT ILLUMINATES THE TARGET OBJECT BY APPLYING TEMPORAL PHASE MODULATION TECHNIQUES DURING THE TRANSMISSION OF THE PLIB TOWARDS THE TARGET Abstract A planar laser illumination and imaging (PLLIM) based camera system capable of producing digital images with reduced levels of speckle-pattern noise. The PLIIM based camera system comprises a planar laser illumination array (PLIA) including a plurality of laser diodes for producing and projecting a planar laser illumination beam (PLIB), so as to illuminate an object as it is moving past said PLIIM based camera system. An image formation and detection (IFD) module is provided having a image detection array and imaging forming optics for providing the image detection array with a field of view (FOV). The PLIB and FOV are arranged in a coplanar relationship along the working range of the PLIIM based camera system so that the PLIB illuminates primarily within the FOV of the IFD module. A speckle-pattern noise reduction subsystem is integrated with the PLIA, for reducing the temporal-coherence of said planar laser illumination beam (PLIB) before the PLIB illuminates a target obje! ct. The speckle-pattern noise reduction subsystem carries out a temporal phase modulation technique during the transmission of the PLIB towards the target, so that the object is illuminated with a temporally coherent-reduced planar laser illumination beam (PLIB) and numerous substantially different time-varying speckle-noise patterns are produced at the image detection array over the photo-integration time period thereof. The numerous substantially different time-varying speckle-noise patterns are detected at the image detection array over the photo-integration time period, and the detected speckle-noise patterns are temporally averaged at said image detection array during the photo-integration time period thereof. As a result of such temporal averaging, the RMS power of observable speckle-noise patterns is reduced at the image detection array. By virtue of the present invention, it is now possible to enjoy the benefits of using laser-based illumination during high-speed im! aging operations, without the adverse effects associated with speckle- pattern noise. Huh??
Re: Image Stabilization (WAS: RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS)
På 21. okt. 2004 kl. 23.13 skrev Pål Jensen: Alan wrote: I was wondering if this patient thing was accurate (I really don't know, that's why I ask). Did Pentax hold the "major" patients, or just a mnor part of it? Were Canon & Nikon using Pentax "IS/VR" technology"? Or are we just trying to make us Pentaxens felt better? I have never heard or read the same suggestion anywhere else outside PDML. Any direct link to any creditable source to prove this suggestion? The patents in question are from 1989-1991 if my memory serves me right. They are Pentax patents on the complete optical designs in every minute detail for telephoto IS lenses and another patent for IS telephoto zoom lenses. These Pentax patents only refer to other companies patents on the servo mechanism and an early Canon patent that outlines the principal design of an IS lens (this contains only a few lens elements that only outlines what types of elemnst needed i such a lens like eg. moving elements, correcting elements etc.). All subsequent Canon and Nikon patents refers to these Pentax patents and I can find no patent older that the Pentax ones on workable optical designs. I could find no Canon patents that predate the Pentax ones on finished optical designs and again the subsequent Canon patents on IS all refer to these Pentax patents. The patents are no longer available through the net unless you pay for them but they were once posted on the PDML. The last sentence can´t be correct. The availability of patent specifications have been increasing the last few years. You could try such databases as: http://ep.espacenet.com/ and http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html I would be very interested if you could refer to any patent numbers. DagT
Re: Image Stabilization (WAS: RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS)
Alan wrote: > I was wondering if this patient thing was accurate (I really don't know, > that's why I ask). Did Pentax hold the "major" patients, or just a mnor part > of it? Were Canon & Nikon using Pentax "IS/VR" technology"? Or are we just > trying to make us Pentaxens felt better? I have never heard or read the same > suggestion anywhere else outside PDML. Any direct link to any creditable > source to prove this suggestion? The patents in question are from 1989-1991 if my memory serves me right. They are Pentax patents on the complete optical designs in every minute detail for telephoto IS lenses and another patent for IS telephoto zoom lenses. These Pentax patents only refer to other companies patents on the servo mechanism and an early Canon patent that outlines the principal design of an IS lens (this contains only a few lens elements that only outlines what types of elemnst needed i such a lens like eg. moving elements, correcting elements etc.). All subsequent Canon and Nikon patents refers to these Pentax patents and I can find no patent older that the Pentax ones on workable optical designs. I could find no Canon patents that predate the Pentax ones on finished optical designs and again the subsequent Canon patents on IS all refer to these Pentax patents. The patents are no longer available through the net unless you pay for them but they were once posted on the PDML. Pål
RE: Image Stabilization (WAS: RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS)
I was wondering if this patient thing was accurate (I really don't know, that's why I ask). Did Pentax hold the "major" patients, or just a mnor part of it? Were Canon & Nikon using Pentax "IS/VR" technology"? Or are we just trying to make us Pentaxens felt better? I have never heard or read the same suggestion anywhere else outside PDML. Any direct link to any creditable source to prove this suggestion? Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan I believe "in lens" IS is far more complex. Typically, an IS lens has twice the number of lens elements than comparable lenses without IS. All the glass is needed to compensate the various aberations introduced by the moving elements (incidentally the Pentax patents on IS lens design, refered to by both Canon and Nikon in their IS patents, explains this in detail). Hence an IS lens is optically compromised. Although some IS lenses are great the fact is that the same lens would have been even better without the IS feature. In addition the complexities means that the lenses are more delicate and will also display relatively large sample to sample variation. The later aspect is very common for eg. the Canon 100-400 and 400 DO lenses where several byuers have returned their lenses or exchanged them with better samples. Some have even given up on them completely.
Image Stabilization (WAS: RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS)
Lawrence wrote: Actually, the reverse is true. Image stabilization in the lens require much smaller movement as you are rotating the lens. And you have the freedom to choose where to place the stabilization element for the optimal position. Whereas in Minolta approach, you need a very large movement of the CCD in the focal plane to accomplish the same thing (the larger the CCD, the larger the movement)- and it must have been quite a technological feat. Lens image stabilization is tried and true. Minolta approach is innovative, but definitely a lot more complex. It remains to be seen if the reliability can match that of lens design. REPLY: I believe "in lens" IS is far more complex. Typically, an IS lens has twice the number of lens elements than comparable lenses without IS. All the glass is needed to compensate the various aberations introduced by the moving elements (incidentally the Pentax patents on IS lens design, refered to by both Canon and Nikon in their IS patents, explains this in detail). Hence an IS lens is optically compromised. Although some IS lenses are great the fact is that the same lens would have been even better without the IS feature. In addition the complexities means that the lenses are more delicate and will also display relatively large sample to sample variation. The later aspect is very common for eg. the Canon 100-400 and 400 DO lenses where several byuers have returned their lenses or exchanged them with better samples. Some have even given up on them completely. Pål
RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 21:18:36 -0400, J. C. O'Connell wrote: >**IF** the minolta scheme ends up working as good for DSLRs as putting >the IS in the lenses, >Canon/Nikon/Pentax will have no choice but to put it in their DSLRs too >to keep up. Its far more cost effective to have one system in the >body instead of a IS system in every lensMinota would kill them on >the price of the lenses because theirs wouldn't need the IS systems in >the lenses. >If that happened and only film bodies needed IS in lenses, IS lenses >would >go extinct because camera MFGRs are not going to sell products good only >for film cameras >anymore.. Some thoughts I have on the whole IS thing. I'm concerned about the conductors which transmit the data from the sensor (which will move to do the image stabilizing) to the rest of the electronics (which don't move). There will be upto several hundred small adjustments during each exposure using IS. these movements stress the conductors and eventually they will fail. This will result in the loss of entire rows data from the sensor. In lens IS can give you an IS image in the viewfinder. IS in the camera can't. In camera IS needs to move the sensor assembly, but in lens IS pivots the lens element around a central point - not moving it as such just changing the direction it is pointing (less effort involved than moving the whole lens). IS only adjusts for vertical and horizontal movement, not rotation or forward/backward movement. My problem is more often moving subjects than camera shake, so IS doesn't mean a lot to me. Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon
Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Rob Studdert wrote: > when a disc is spinning at 52x (ie 52x500RPM on the outside edge) 52 x 200 rpm actually. 200 rpm is the slowest speed a standard audio CD spins at (when reading the outermost track) and it is that speed that is used when quoting modern day large speed figures -- not the top speed used at the innermost track. The disc itself won't sustain the forces that 52 x 500 rpm would result in. The outer edge would travel at half the speed of sound, the force would be equal to 1500 g, and the hub would feel a tangential pull of 45 N/mm2. The disc would shatter. This Swedish language web page describes a full scale test, where CD:s were rotated at these speeds. When the disc breaked, the scrap almost penetrated a 1 mm aluminium cover. http://www.qedata.se/js_n-cdrom.htm anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/ med dagens bild och allt!
RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
**IF** the minolta scheme ends up working as good for DSLRs as putting the IS in the lenses, Canon/Nikon/Pentax will have no choice but to put it in their DSLRs too to keep up. Its far more cost effective to have one system in the body instead of a IS system in every lensMinota would kill them on the price of the lenses because theirs wouldn't need the IS systems in the lenses. If that happened and only film bodies needed IS in lenses, IS lenses would go extinct because camera MFGRs are not going to sell products good only for film cameras anymore.. JCO -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 8:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS is a manufacturer then going to put out two different high end lens lines that differ only by their IS capabilty? i think not. Herb... - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 8:38 PM Subject: RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS > Just because you need IS in lenses for the film bodies doesn't mean > there is no value in putting it in the DSLR bodies too because in the > DSLR every lens becomes IS not just a few special and expensive > models.
Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
is a manufacturer then going to put out two different high end lens lines that differ only by their IS capabilty? i think not. Herb... - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 8:38 PM Subject: RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS > Just because you need IS in lenses for the film bodies doesn't > mean there is no value in putting it in the DSLR bodies too > because in the DSLR every lens becomes IS not just a few special > and expensive models.
Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
that's a flexible medium with lots of irregularities compared to the DOF. a digital film body could move the sensor at the same time as it's moving lens elements. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 8:21 PM Subject: Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS > No, to maximize mechanical band-width. Have a little think about the rate at > which a CD lens has to move to track the pit and focus when a disc is spinning > at 52x (ie 52x500RPM on the outside edge)
RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
Focal length could be input into body system computer via user which would be simple for primes but tricky with zooms. JCO -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 8:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS On 14 Oct 2004 at 20:38, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Just because you need IS in lenses for the film bodies doesn't mean > there is no value in putting it in the DSLR bodies too because in the > DSLR every lens becomes IS not just a few special and expensive > models. The system needs info regarding FL (at the very least) to determine the appropriate amount of offset to apply relative to the movement sensor in the body. So I would suggest that only some lenses would be suitable in any case. The Minolta "Anti-shake" mech looks pretty "shaky" to me, I wonder what the MTBF is, LOL http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/Anti-shake_01.htm http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/konicaminoltaa2/Images/asccd.jpg http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/konicaminoltaa2/Images/asmovie.mov Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
On 14 Oct 2004 at 20:38, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Just because you need IS in lenses for the film bodies doesn't > mean there is no value in putting it in the DSLR bodies too > because in the DSLR every lens becomes IS not just a few special > and expensive models. The system needs info regarding FL (at the very least) to determine the appropriate amount of offset to apply relative to the movement sensor in the body. So I would suggest that only some lenses would be suitable in any case. The Minolta "Anti-shake" mech looks pretty "shaky" to me, I wonder what the MTBF is, LOL http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/Anti-shake_01.htm http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/konicaminoltaa2/Images/asccd.jpg http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/konicaminoltaa2/Images/asmovie.mov Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
Just because you need IS in lenses for the film bodies doesn't mean there is no value in putting it in the DSLR bodies too because in the DSLR every lens becomes IS not just a few special and expensive models. JCO -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 7:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS the amount that it has to be moved depends on the amount of image movement, which is a function of focal length. a lens mounted IS system doesn't have as much dependency on that if you can position the moving group near the lens' tripod mount. there are pluses and minuses to both approaches. body IS isn't a complete win with no disadvantages. you have to go lens IS if you want to use it on a film camera, and that is why Nikon and Canon have it in their lenses and not in their bodies. Herb... - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 8:21 AM Subject: RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS > the motor size is going to depend on motor > power and the motor power required is going to > depend not simply on the amount of movement > but rather the acceleration of the moving masses > involved..
RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
glass is very dense and I don't think they are going to be so very small as to weigh less than 7 grams for a group of them not even counting the cell to hold them together as a group...But this is drifting into conjecture because I doubt that me, you, or anyone else can come up with the mass specs. for the IS moving elements in all the currently availble IS lenses on the market JCO -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 7:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS On 14 Oct 2004 at 18:41, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Are you trying saying that a moving lens cell in a tele lens (most of > the IS lenses are longer teles and zooms) with several glass elements > and a cell to hold them weighs LESS than 7 grams? No. I'm saying that the the CCD alone is 7g therefore the assembly has to weigh considerably more. Look at any typical IS lens cross section and you'll see quite plainly that the corrective elements are always quite small relative to the lenses max aperture, they have to have low mass obviously. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
On 14 Oct 2004 at 19:26, Herb Chong wrote: > tradition. No, to maximize mechanical band-width. Have a little think about the rate at which a CD lens has to move to track the pit and focus when a disc is spinning at 52x (ie 52x500RPM on the outside edge) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
tradition. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 6:24 PM Subject: Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS > Kind of makes you kind of wonder why they bother to > move the lens for track/focus and not the sensor in CD/DVD pick-ups too.
Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
- Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" Subject: Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS Not necessarily, the relative size of the active lens elements in many IS lenses appear quite compact and the *ist D sensor (same as the new Minolta) weighs in at 7.00g bare. Kind of makes you kind of wonder why they bother to move the lens for track/focus and not the sensor in CD/DVD pick-ups too. The bare sensor weight comprises a % of the total mass to be moved., but not all the weight? William Robb
Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
the body IS motors aren't larger than the lens IS motors. the lens IS motors can be made larger and quieter because there is more room in the lens to accommodate the system. in the body, you have to enlarge the body to accommodate the motors for the IS system. Herb - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 8:39 AM Subject: RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS > No one said that lens IS doesn't work, of course it does, but someone > did say that the motors required for body IS where larger > and noiser than those for Lens IS which I don't > think is necessarily true...
RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
On 14 Oct 2004 at 18:41, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Are you trying saying that a moving lens cell in a tele lens (most of > the > IS lenses are longer teles and zooms) with several glass elements > and a cell to hold them weighs LESS than 7 grams? No. I'm saying that the the CCD alone is 7g therefore the assembly has to weigh considerably more. Look at any typical IS lens cross section and you'll see quite plainly that the corrective elements are always quite small relative to the lenses max aperture, they have to have low mass obviously. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
the amount that it has to be moved depends on the amount of image movement, which is a function of focal length. a lens mounted IS system doesn't have as much dependency on that if you can position the moving group near the lens' tripod mount. there are pluses and minuses to both approaches. body IS isn't a complete win with no disadvantages. you have to go lens IS if you want to use it on a film camera, and that is why Nikon and Canon have it in their lenses and not in their bodies. Herb... - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 8:21 AM Subject: RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS > the motor size is going to depend on motor > power and the motor power required is going to > depend not simply on the amount of movement > but rather the acceleration of the moving masses > involved..
RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
Are you trying saying that a moving lens cell in a tele lens (most of the IS lenses are longer teles and zooms) with several glass elements and a cell to hold them weighs LESS than 7 grams? JCO -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 6:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS On 14 Oct 2004 at 12:15, Peter J. Alling wrote: > Johns probably right, it's bound to be a single lens but a lens group > being moved vs the sensor. "Probably" a considerably larger mass in the > lens elements. Not necessarily, the relative size of the active lens elements in many IS lenses appear quite compact and the *ist D sensor (same as the new Minolta) weighs in at 7.00g bare. Kind of makes you kind of wonder why they bother to move the lens for track/focus and not the sensor in CD/DVD pick-ups too. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
On 14 Oct 2004 at 12:15, Peter J. Alling wrote: > Johns probably right, it's bound to be a single lens but a lens group > being moved vs the sensor. "Probably" a considerably larger mass in the > lens elements. Not necessarily, the relative size of the active lens elements in many IS lenses appear quite compact and the *ist D sensor (same as the new Minolta) weighs in at 7.00g bare. Kind of makes you kind of wonder why they bother to move the lens for track/focus and not the sensor in CD/DVD pick-ups too. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
J. C. O'Connell wrote on 14.10.04 14:39: > No one said that lens IS doesn't work, of course it does, but someone > did say that the motors required for body IS where larger > and noiser than those for Lens IS which I don't > think is necessarily true... You're right. But body IS involes a few theoretical problems. 1. How stable is it in long term? Any miscalibration of focussing plane (we all know how iportant was always flat and precise film plane in film cameras) will lead to more or less blurry out-of-focus shots. In case of IS lenses you have AF sensors AFTER the lens and its stabilised image, so any focussing errors are automatically corrected by camera. 2. Failure of IS in body will lead to failure of IS in all of your lenses. With IS in lens you just loose stabilisation in just one lens. 3. Complicated mechanics used to move (shake) CCD will undoubtly generate some heat increasing noise coming from the sensor. -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
Johns probably right, it's bound to be a single lens but a lens group being moved vs the sensor. "Probably" a considerably larger mass in the lens elements. William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS I do not think that IS in a lens involves simply rotating a lens , it involves moving a lens (mass) laterally. And in body IS is not moving anything? William Robb -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
At this point, it's the concept that's being considered. The ultimate desirability would, obviously, follow the normal course of individual evaluation. I'm pleased there are the beginnings of a move to develop the technology. Jack --- Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The thing here is no one who is saying the Minolta > system is better has ever > used one. Why not wait to make these determinations > from experience rather than > guess work. Lot's of seemingly great ideas turned > out to be not so great in > practice. > > -- > > J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > > The $64,000 question is do you want or need a > smaller > > body more than you want or need a BODY integrated > > IS system? If the answer isnt clear than the MFGRs > > could offer different models with and without the > feature. > > > > > > JCO > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 10:57 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS > > > > > > they don't. take a look at the room around for the > AF system. putting in > > what Minolta did will make the bodies much larger. > > > > Herb... > > - Original Message - > > From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 10:06 PM > > Subject: RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS > > > > > > > >>pentax doesn't have IS system in body or lenses do > they? > > > > > > > > > > -- > graywolf > http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html > > > ___ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
No one said that lens IS doesn't work, of course it does, but someone did say that the motors required for body IS where larger and noiser than those for Lens IS which I don't think is necessarily true... JCO -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 8:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS > the motor size is going to depend on motor > power and the motor power required is going to > depend not simply on the amount of movement > but rather the acceleration of the moving masses > involved.. Well, it does seem to work. The guys over at Canon and Nikon think it does anyway. Those two manufacturers have a pretty long history of doing things that work. William Robb
RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
with body IS, a CCD/CMOS sensor is moving, but that has much lower mass than lens elements. jco -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 8:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS >I do not think that IS in a lens involves simply rotating > a lens , it involves moving a lens (mass) laterally. And in body IS is not moving anything? William Robb
Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS the motor size is going to depend on motor power and the motor power required is going to depend not simply on the amount of movement but rather the acceleration of the moving masses involved.. Well, it does seem to work. The guys over at Canon and Nikon think it does anyway. Those two manufacturers have a pretty long history of doing things that work. William Robb
Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS I do not think that IS in a lens involves simply rotating a lens , it involves moving a lens (mass) laterally. And in body IS is not moving anything? William Robb
RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
the motor size is going to depend on motor power and the motor power required is going to depend not simply on the amount of movement but rather the acceleration of the moving masses involved.. -Original Message- From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 7:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS I do not think that IS in a lens involves simply rotating a lens , it involves moving a lens (mass) laterally. JCO -Original Message- From: Lawrence Kwan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 2:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > with body IS, you don't need a motor in the lens > at all and you only need one motor system, in the body. > The motion is the sensor and that is a lot smaller > and lighter than lens elements so the motor > should be smaller and lighter and quieter than lens motors. Actually, the reverse is true. Image stabilization in the lens require much smaller movement as you are rotating the lens. And you have the freedom to choose where to place the stabilization element for the optimal position. Whereas in Minolta approach, you need a very large movement of the CCD in the focal plane to accomplish the same thing (the larger the CCD, the larger the movement)- and it must have been quite a technological feat. Lens image stabilization is tried and true. Minolta approach is innovative, but definitely a lot more complex. It remains to be seen if the reliability can match that of lens design. -- --Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.vex.net/~lawrence -- --Tungsten T3 Enhanced DIA KeyboardNokia Ringtone Convertor--
RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
I do not think that IS in a lens involves simply rotating a lens , it involves moving a lens (mass) laterally. JCO -Original Message- From: Lawrence Kwan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 2:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > with body IS, you don't need a motor in the lens > at all and you only need one motor system, in the body. > The motion is the sensor and that is a lot smaller > and lighter than lens elements so the motor > should be smaller and lighter and quieter than lens motors. Actually, the reverse is true. Image stabilization in the lens require much smaller movement as you are rotating the lens. And you have the freedom to choose where to place the stabilization element for the optimal position. Whereas in Minolta approach, you need a very large movement of the CCD in the focal plane to accomplish the same thing (the larger the CCD, the larger the movement)- and it must have been quite a technological feat. Lens image stabilization is tried and true. Minolta approach is innovative, but definitely a lot more complex. It remains to be seen if the reliability can match that of lens design. -- --Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.vex.net/~lawrence -- --Tungsten T3 Enhanced DIA KeyboardNokia Ringtone Convertor--
RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote: with body IS, you don't need a motor in the lens at all and you only need one motor system, in the body. The motion is the sensor and that is a lot smaller and lighter than lens elements so the motor should be smaller and lighter and quieter than lens motors. Actually, the reverse is true. Image stabilization in the lens require much smaller movement as you are rotating the lens. And you have the freedom to choose where to place the stabilization element for the optimal position. Whereas in Minolta approach, you need a very large movement of the CCD in the focal plane to accomplish the same thing (the larger the CCD, the larger the movement)- and it must have been quite a technological feat. Lens image stabilization is tried and true. Minolta approach is innovative, but definitely a lot more complex. It remains to be seen if the reliability can match that of lens design. -- --Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.vex.net/~lawrence -- --Tungsten T3 Enhanced DIA KeyboardNokia Ringtone Convertor--
Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
- Original Message - From: "Graywolf" Subject: Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS The thing here is no one who is saying the Minolta system is better has ever used one. Why not wait to make these determinations from experience rather than guess work. Lot's of seemingly great ideas turned out to be not so great in practice. Contax tried AF in the body and it bombed. And it seemed like a good idea at the time. William Robb
Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
On Oct 14, 2004, at 6:32 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: I just saw a magazine ad for the new Minolta Maxxum DSLR (their first DSLR ever) and it has Image stabilization in the BODY. what I don't understand is why canon/nikon/pentax didn't do this already? I thought I read rumours here about Pentax possibly working on it. That Minolta body does look pretty good... - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
body IS is better for compatibility and amortized price, but worse for a lot of other things. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Jack Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 3:42 PM Subject: Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS > J. C. O'Connell's question asserts that body I.S. > is, obviously, a better idea..and I agree. That is, > unless their competition wants to sell more lenses. > 'ya think?
Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
The thing here is no one who is saying the Minolta system is better has ever used one. Why not wait to make these determinations from experience rather than guess work. Lot's of seemingly great ideas turned out to be not so great in practice. -- J. C. O'Connell wrote: The $64,000 question is do you want or need a smaller body more than you want or need a BODY integrated IS system? If the answer isnt clear than the MFGRs could offer different models with and without the feature. JCO -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 10:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS they don't. take a look at the room around for the AF system. putting in what Minolta did will make the bodies much larger. Herb... - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 10:06 PM Subject: RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS pentax doesn't have IS system in body or lenses do they? -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
have you looked at the relative sizes of the Pentax vs Minolta systems' motor assemblies? Herb... - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 9:39 PM Subject: RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS > with body IS, you don't need a motor in the lens > at all and you only need one motor system, in the body. > The motion is the sensor and that is a lot smaller > and lighter than lens elements so the motor > should be smaller and lighter and quieter than lens motors.
RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
I think you are going to be wrong in that in some cases the Body IS that minolta has is going to be better than the nothing that Pentax/Canon/Nikon has. don't forget, it is only an option and I suspect it can be turned off to make it similar to non-IS body. JCO -Original Message- From: Graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 12:17 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS The thing here is no one who is saying the Minolta system is better has ever used one. Why not wait to make these determinations from experience rather than guess work. Lot's of seemingly great ideas turned out to be not so great in practice. -- J. C. O'Connell wrote: > The $64,000 question is do you want or need a smaller > body more than you want or need a BODY integrated > IS system? If the answer isnt clear than the MFGRs > could offer different models with and without the feature. > > > JCO > > -Original Message- > From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 10:57 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS > > > they don't. take a look at the room around for the AF system. putting > in what Minolta did will make the bodies much larger. > > Herb... > - Original Message - > From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 10:06 PM > Subject: RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS > > > >>pentax doesn't have IS system in body or lenses do they? > > > > -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
The $64,000 question is do you want or need a smaller body more than you want or need a BODY integrated IS system? If the answer isnt clear than the MFGRs could offer different models with and without the feature. JCO -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 10:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS they don't. take a look at the room around for the AF system. putting in what Minolta did will make the bodies much larger. Herb... - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 10:06 PM Subject: RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS > pentax doesn't have IS system in body or lenses do they?
Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
they don't. take a look at the room around for the AF system. putting in what Minolta did will make the bodies much larger. Herb... - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 10:06 PM Subject: RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS > pentax doesn't have IS system in body or lenses do they?
Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
there are some good reasons for doing it in the lens. saving money isn't one of them. neither is having a small body. you gain having a motor sized exactly for the lens and it is a lot easier to make a very quiet motor since it can be made a larger. Herb... - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 1:32 PM Subject: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS > I just saw a magazine ad for the new Minolta > Maxxum DSLR (their first DSLR ever) and it has Image stabilization > in the BODY. what I don't understand is why > canon/nikon/pentax didn't do this already?
RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
pentax doesn't have IS system in body or lenses do they? JCO -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 9:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS have you looked at the relative sizes of the Pentax vs Minolta systems' motor assemblies? Herb... - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 9:39 PM Subject: RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS > with body IS, you don't need a motor in the lens > at all and you only need one motor system, in the body. > The motion is the sensor and that is a lot smaller > and lighter than lens elements so the motor > should be smaller and lighter and quieter than lens motors.
RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
Seems like the body would be better for things other than price too. JCO -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 9:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS body IS is better for compatibility and amortized price, but worse for a lot of other things. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Jack Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 3:42 PM Subject: Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS > J. C. O'Connell's question asserts that body I.S. > is, obviously, a better idea..and I agree. That is, > unless their competition wants to sell more lenses. > 'ya think?
Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
Ah so if Pentax commits seppuku who will be his second and do the decapitation? > Canon and Nikon already addressed it and Mr. > Harakiri is too Limited. = JB
Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
I was at a local photo store where a clerk was looking at a Nikon P&S digital that has IS in the body. Yeah, it makes you wonder about Pentax competing. They aren't. Jim A. > I just saw a magazine ad for the new Minolta > Maxxum DSLR (their first DSLR ever) and it has Image stabilization > in the BODY. what I don't understand is why > canon/nikon/pentax didn't do this already? > JCO > >
Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
Yeah?? --- Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I suspect that in the digital era you'll change the > body more often than > the lenses. > > Jack Davis wrote: > > > Caveman, > > J. C. O'Connell's question asserts that body I.S. > > > is, obviously, a better idea..and I agree. That > is, > > unless their competition wants to sell more > lenses. > > 'ya think? > > > > Jack > > > > --- Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>Canon and Nikon already addressed it and Mr. > >>Harakiri is too Limited. > >> > >>J. C. O'Connell wrote: > >> > >> > >>>I just saw a magazine ad for the new Minolta > >>>Maxxum DSLR (their first DSLR ever) and it has > >> > >>Image stabilization > >> > >>>in the BODY. what I don't understand is why > >>>canon/nikon/pentax didn't do this already? > >>>JCO > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! > > http://vote.yahoo.com > > > > > > ___ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
Even in the "film era" you changed the bodies more often than the lensesthat is why there are still so many fine K/M lenses still alive and kicking... JCO -Original Message- From: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 3:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS I suspect that in the digital era you'll change the body more often than the lenses. Jack Davis wrote: > Caveman, > J. C. O'Connell's question asserts that body I.S. > is, obviously, a better idea..and I agree. That is, > unless their competition wants to sell more lenses. > 'ya think? > > Jack > > --- Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Canon and Nikon already addressed it and Mr. >>Harakiri is too Limited. >> >>J. C. O'Connell wrote: >> >> >>>I just saw a magazine ad for the new Minolta >>>Maxxum DSLR (their first DSLR ever) and it has >> >>Image stabilization >> >>>in the BODY. what I don't understand is why canon/nikon/pentax didn't >>>do this already? JCO >>> >>> >> >> > > > > > ___ > Do you Yahoo!? > Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! > http://vote.yahoo.com > >
Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
I suspect that in the digital era you'll change the body more often than the lenses. Jack Davis wrote: Caveman, J. C. O'Connell's question asserts that body I.S. is, obviously, a better idea..and I agree. That is, unless their competition wants to sell more lenses. 'ya think? Jack --- Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Canon and Nikon already addressed it and Mr. Harakiri is too Limited. J. C. O'Connell wrote: I just saw a magazine ad for the new Minolta Maxxum DSLR (their first DSLR ever) and it has Image stabilization in the BODY. what I don't understand is why canon/nikon/pentax didn't do this already? JCO ___ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
Caveman, J. C. O'Connell's question asserts that body I.S. is, obviously, a better idea..and I agree. That is, unless their competition wants to sell more lenses. 'ya think? Jack --- Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Canon and Nikon already addressed it and Mr. > Harakiri is too Limited. > > J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > > I just saw a magazine ad for the new Minolta > > Maxxum DSLR (their first DSLR ever) and it has > Image stabilization > > in the BODY. what I don't understand is why > > canon/nikon/pentax didn't do this already? > > JCO > > > > > > ___ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
how did they "address it" ? IS lenses? Body is better no? JCO -Original Message- From: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 1:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS Canon and Nikon already addressed it and Mr. Harakiri is too Limited. J. C. O'Connell wrote: > I just saw a magazine ad for the new Minolta > Maxxum DSLR (their first DSLR ever) and it has Image stabilization in > the BODY. what I don't understand is why canon/nikon/pentax didn't do > this already? JCO > >
Re: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS
Canon and Nikon already addressed it and Mr. Harakiri is too Limited. J. C. O'Connell wrote: I just saw a magazine ad for the new Minolta Maxxum DSLR (their first DSLR ever) and it has Image stabilization in the BODY. what I don't understand is why canon/nikon/pentax didn't do this already? JCO
