From: David J. Littleboy on

"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: Alfred Molon on
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
From: Bruce on
On Tue, 25 May 2010 13:10:33 +0200, Alfred Molon
<alfred_molon(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

>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.


Or perhaps Sony finally realised that their in-camera system doesn't
work at all well.

From: John Navas on
On Tue, 25 May 2010 13:10:33 +0200, Alfred Molon
<alfred_molon(a)yahoo.com> wrote in
<MPG.2665ce947e742bf998c308(a)news.supernews.com>:

>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.

I agree. It's a great idea, but pushed just a bit too far.
--
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: John Navas on
On Tue, 25 May 2010 13:54:25 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote
in <l2inv510i9n5pehrq6qtrs2kbj8bj7sc0f(a)4ax.com>:

>On Tue, 25 May 2010 13:10:33 +0200, Alfred Molon
><alfred_molon(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>Or perhaps Sony finally realised that their in-camera system doesn't
>work at all well.

No change to other bodies would suggest otherwise.
--
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