At 06:39 PM 07/26/2001, you wrote:
>Can anyone provide a simple explanation (or URL) of how
>image-stabilization technology works?
Try http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/room/f_index.html and then
select Image Stabilization from the list on the right.
--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sa
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 14:20:45 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:
>Can anyone provide a simple explanation (or URL) of how
>image-stabilization technology works? It sounds like black magic to me,
>and I'd be interested in seeing how it does what it does.
Here's a simple:
http://www.canon.com/camera-museu
Can anyone provide a simple explanation (or URL) of how
image-stabilization technology works? It sounds like black magic to me,
and I'd be interested in seeing how it does what it does.
--
Terry Carroll\ "But at the end of the day, even if you put a calico
Santa Clara, CA \ dress on it and
> > I'm sorry if this question has been asked before in this mailing list.
>Since
> > I don't have any IS lenses, I'm curious whether an IS lens would be
>slower
> > than a similar lens without it? E.g., would the EF 70-200/2.8 IS L be
>slower
> > than the old Canon 70-200/2.8 L because the IS te
- Original Message -
From: "Jansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Canon EOS Milist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 2:04 AM
Subject: EOS Canon IS Technology
> I'm sorry if this question has been asked before in this mailing list.
The focusing of an IS lens will not be any slower than an equalvalent non-IS
version, you are most likely correct though if you deduce that it might take
a hair more time for the IS to stablize once it is initiated.
There is no EF70-200 IS L, yet, so this is a somewhat moot point (Hope Canon
surp
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 20:04:24 -0400, you wrote:
>I'm sorry if this question has been asked before in this mailing list. Since
>I don't have any IS lenses, I'm curious whether an IS lens would be slower
>than a similar lens without it? E.g., would the EF 70-200/2.8 IS L be slower
>than the old Cano
--- Jansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm sorry if this question has been asked before in this mailing
> list. Since
> I don't have any IS lenses, I'm curious whether an IS lens would be
> slower
> than a similar lens without it? E.g., would the EF 70-200/2.8 IS L be
> slower
> than the old Can
I'm sorry if this question has been asked before in this mailing list. Since
I don't have any IS lenses, I'm curious whether an IS lens would be slower
than a similar lens without it? E.g., would the EF 70-200/2.8 IS L be slower
than the old Canon 70-200/2.8 L because the IS technology adds more t
