From: David J. Littleboy on

"nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <862v3vF3ulU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
> <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> >> A camera system can be more sophisticated and capable,
>> >> with the extra function buried in on board electronics
>> >> and amortized over multiple lenses.
>>
>> > a lens system can be just as sophisticated and capable, if not more so,
>> > since it can be tuned to the specifics of each lens, not one size fits
>> > all.
>>
>> In body IS isn't one size fits all.
>
> yes it is
>
>> It reads the necessary parameters
>> from the lens, the most important being focal length, and adjusts
>> itself.
>
> sure but it's still the *same* system that has to cover everything from
> a super-wide to a super-tele and everything in between. the amount of
> sensor excursion to properly stabilize a super-telephoto is impossible,
> whereas each lens can be individually tuned, as needed.

Uh, no. IS claims to "fix" up to "n" stops of shake. That's the _exactly the
same_ excursion for every lens, whatever the focal length.

If you can hold your lenses steady enough for 1/<focal length> shutter
speeds, then for an 800mm lens, image motion at the focal plane at 1/100 is
exactly the same as image motion at the focal plane for a 200mm lens at
1/25.

Longer lenses require a faster response time, though.

FWIW, I read about someone who tested a cheap supertele with stacked TCs on
one of the first in-camera IS systems. It worked fine even with insanely
long focal lengths.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



From: nospam on
In article <xsCdnV1GttOE82HWnZ2dnVY3go-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, David J.
Littleboy <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote:

> Uh, no. IS claims to "fix" up to "n" stops of shake. That's the _exactly the
> same_ excursion for every lens, whatever the focal length.

as the focal length gets longer, the same amount of shake causes a much
larger movement. that's why you need a faster shutter speed to 'freeze'
it.
From: Peter on
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:201005251737442196-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-05-25 16:30:35 -0700, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> said:
>
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>> news:2010052321244916708-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>
>>> I have a D300s which replaced a stolen D300, which I was quite satisfied
>>> with. I have a G11 which serves well as my compact spare. If I am going
>>> to upgrade at this stage it would be to pick up a D700, or its
>>> successor.
>>
>> Yeahbut, the low high ISO noise of the D3s...........
>>
>> No, I will wait for at least one year.
>
> At least a year, probably longer. I would hope there would be a better
> performing successor to the D700 by then. I cannot, without a lottery win,
> justify the sticker pricer of a D3s.
> Perhaps a used D3s somewhere down the road?
>


I have a thing about buying a used camera, even though I've had good luck
with used lenses.
(Including a 20mm, 24mm & 200 micro. To give you an idea of how long, I
converted all three to AI.)

--
Peter

From: Chase Urtale on
On Tue, 25 May 2010 17:37:44 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2010-05-25 16:30:35 -0700, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> said:
>
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>> news:2010052321244916708-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>
>>> I have a D300s which replaced a stolen D300, which I was quite
>>> satisfied with. I have a G11 which serves well as my compact spare. If
>>> I am going to upgrade at this stage it would be to pick up a D700, or
>>> its successor.
>>
>> Yeahbut, the low high ISO noise of the D3s...........
>>
>> No, I will wait for at least one year.
>
>At least a year, probably longer. I would hope there would be a better
>performing successor to the D700 by then. I cannot, without a lottery
>win, justify the sticker pricer of a D3s.
>Perhaps a used D3s somewhere down the road?

I hate to break it do you, but it's still not going to improve your
photography. You can count on that, all the way to their banks.

From: David J. Littleboy on

"nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:250520101744416856%nospam(a)nospam.invalid...
> In article <xsCdnV1GttOE82HWnZ2dnVY3go-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, David J.
> Littleboy <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote:
>
>> Uh, no. IS claims to "fix" up to "n" stops of shake. That's the _exactly
>> the
>> same_ excursion for every lens, whatever the focal length.
>
> as the focal length gets longer, the same amount of shake causes a much
> larger movement. that's why you need a faster shutter speed to 'freeze'
> it.

Yes. Which is why the _excursion_ at the focal plane is the same, whatever
the focal length.

(The excursion would only be longer if the same shutter speeds were used,
but you don't use the same shutter speeds. You still have to use faster
shutter speeds with longer lenses for IS.)

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan