From: nospam on
In article <8IednW0aApV572HWnZ2dnVY3gosAAAAA(a)giganews.com>, David J.
Littleboy <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote:

> > The angle change from sensor displacement is much less significant than
> > degradation of optical quality and Bokeh from lens element movement.
>
> Funny thing that the IS/VR lenses actually work and consistently cough up
> great images.

indeed they do and nobody complains about bokeh.

> Theory is nice, but it needs to be informed by actual reality. (Which in
> this case is that in-lens is noticeably better than in-camera, if you can
> afford the lenses.)

that depends on the lens. for some, a stabilized version is not much
more than a non-stabilized version. the canon 70-200 is $100 more than
the sony 70-200 and the sony used to be more money, as i recall.
From: John Navas on
On Wed, 26 May 2010 10:01:12 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote in
<8IednW0aApV572HWnZ2dnVY3gosAAAAA(a)giganews.com>:

>"John Navas" <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:2tqov51b7mtqlhqiv5so7ab8mv8te36oc7(a)4ax.com...

>> The angle change from sensor displacement is much less significant than
>> degradation of optical quality and Bokeh from lens element movement.
>
>Funny thing that the IS/VR lenses actually work and consistently cough up
>great images.

As do non-IS/VR lenses, with and without in-body stabilization.

>Theory is nice, but it needs to be informed by actual reality. (Which in
>this case is that in-lens is noticeably better than in-camera, if you can
>afford the lenses.)

Not true, as I've already explained.

Photography is about photographs, not equipment.
--
Best regards,
John

Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
From: David J. Littleboy on

"nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <8IednW0aApV572HWnZ2dnVY3gosAAAAA(a)giganews.com>, David J.
> Littleboy <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote:
>
>> > The angle change from sensor displacement is much less significant than
>> > degradation of optical quality and Bokeh from lens element movement.
>>
>> Funny thing that the IS/VR lenses actually work and consistently cough up
>> great images.
>
> indeed they do and nobody complains about bokeh.
>
>> Theory is nice, but it needs to be informed by actual reality. (Which in
>> this case is that in-lens is noticeably better than in-camera, if you can
>> afford the lenses.)
>
> that depends on the lens. for some, a stabilized version is not much
> more than a non-stabilized version. the canon 70-200 is $100 more than
> the sony 70-200 and the sony used to be more money, as i recall.

Well, comparing to Sony isn't all that meaningful, since they're such a
small player prices are rather random.

For Canon users, the premium for IS is quite steep. They sweeten it up a bit
by giving you slightly better optics. (Well, usually: IMHO, the 24-105/4.0
IS isn't sharp enough to justify the price and weight. Sigh.)

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


From: David J. Littleboy on

"John Navas" <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:s5uov5l528v2pqnnlnhv0smba57v4bq3d5(a)4ax.com...
> On Wed, 26 May 2010 10:01:12 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
> <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote in
> <8IednW0aApV572HWnZ2dnVY3gosAAAAA(a)giganews.com>:
>
>>"John Navas" <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:2tqov51b7mtqlhqiv5so7ab8mv8te36oc7(a)4ax.com...
>
>>> The angle change from sensor displacement is much less significant than
>>> degradation of optical quality and Bokeh from lens element movement.
>>
>>Funny thing that the IS/VR lenses actually work and consistently cough up
>>great images.
>
> As do non-IS/VR lenses, with and without in-body stabilization.
>
>>Theory is nice, but it needs to be informed by actual reality. (Which in
>>this case is that in-lens is noticeably better than in-camera, if you can
>>afford the lenses.)
>
> Not true, as I've already explained.

Explanations are nice, but actual performance is what counts.

> Photography is about photographs, not equipment.

A good photographer uses his equipment to the best of its abilities, so it's
only incompetent photographers who aren't limited by their tools.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



From: John Navas on
On Wed, 26 May 2010 10:38:40 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote in
<0eadneznStAx5mHWnZ2dnVY3goWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>:

>"John Navas" <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:s5uov5l528v2pqnnlnhv0smba57v4bq3d5(a)4ax.com...

>> Not true, as I've already explained.
>
>Explanations are nice, but actual performance is what counts.

Of course, but explanations assist the understanding .

>> Photography is about photographs, not equipment.
>
>A good photographer uses his equipment to the best of its abilities, so it's
>only incompetent photographers who aren't limited by their tools.

No offense intended, but that's complete and total nonsense.
--
Best regards,
John

Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams