Olympus dalliance with DSLRs over?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: David J. Littleboy on 24 May 2010 22:55 "Chris Malcolm" <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > Don't forget that tecnology keeps improving. At any point in time what > you say is true. But is four year old in-lens IS better than today's > in-camera? Yes. The 70-200/4.0 IS was released in 2006. >I'll probably have a new camera in four years, which with > in-camera IS means the IS is upgraded. But I don't want to have to > renew all my lenses every four years. I'd love in-camera IS so I had it with my legacy, third party, and medium format MF lenses. But the IS in the Canon 70-200/4.0 IS is seriously amazing. Sharp images at 1/15th (with a lot of care and elbows supported or locked) at 200mm, reliably sharp images at 1/30 and 200mm. I doubt in-camera IS will be competing, ever. And, of course, in-camera IS doesn't stabilize the viewfinder image. -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan
From: David J Taylor on 25 May 2010 04:19 "John Navas" <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:g3plv5hniphm3c8e9gor7ts05reavitr3f(a)4ax.com... [] > IS has to be cheap in a cheap lens. ... low-cost, and /still/ works better than in-body stabilisation. > The inescapable issue is cost. It's more cost effective to put IS in > the body than in all thee lenses for a given level of sophistication. Lower cost for lower performance, though. Your money, your choice. On advantage of in-body (which can /also/ be applied when the lens has stabilisation) is the correction of body rotation about the axis of the lens. David
From: David J Taylor on 25 May 2010 04:22 "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message news:4bfadf8d$0$1585$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... [] > For people moving to a D-SLR from a P&S or ZLR, they are unlikely to > understand the advantages of in-lens VR/IS. They only need to look through the viewfinder with a long telephoto lens attached! Watch the image stabilise when the VR is enabled. Little understanding required - just a demonstration at the local shop. David
From: David J Taylor on 25 May 2010 04:25 "Chris Malcolm" <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:860qn8FehdU1(a)mid.individual.net... [] > Don't forget that tecnology keeps improving. At any point in time what > you say is true. But is four year old in-lens IS better than today's > in-camera? I'll probably have a new camera in four years, which with > in-camera IS means the IS is upgraded. But I don't want to have to > renew all my lenses every four years. ... and if your new camera only has in-body IS you /still/ won't get the advantage of a stable image in the optical finder. Cheers, David
From: Alfred Molon on 25 May 2010 07:10
In article <5kjkv51udne8hg9ggllarporrnnb6p2hm7(a)4ax.com>, Bruce says... > I wonder why Sony abandoned the in-camera anti-shake of the Alpha > system, instead using an in-lens anti-shake system for NEX? Obviously not enough space in that tiny body for an in-camera anti-shake system. Seems like Sony cut the corners too much here. -- Alfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |