From: David J Taylor on
"Chris Malcolm" <cam(a)> wrote in message
> I certainly haven't, but given all the rumours about how badly
> in-camera IS performs with long lenses I was pleasantly surprised to
> discover how well it worked with my 500mm.
> --
> Chris Malcolm

Now just imagine how much better it would be if the viewfinder image were
not shifting!


From: Alfred Molon on
In article <7rh2a3Ful7U2(a)>, cam(a)
> It doesn't have it all. It doesn't have MLU! :-)

The lack of MLU in the A350 (the predecessor of the A550) is not really
a problem in my experience. I do however not use a lot the tele lens.

Alfred Molon
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at photo sharing site
From: Chris Malcolm on
In David J Taylor <david-taylor(a)> wrote:
> "Chris Malcolm" <cam(a)> wrote in message
> news:7rge0dFb12U1(a)
>> In David J Taylor
>> <david-taylor(a)>
>> wrote:
>>> "Rich" <none(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:pr2dnXGeIM4eDc_WnZ2dnUVZ_tNi4p2d(a)
>>> []
>>>> I don't pretend they should have the system range of Canon and Nikon
>>>> when
>>>> they JUST RELEASED THE FIRST CAMERA. Besides, Olympus and Panasonic
>>>> (4/3rds, micro 4/3rds) have 7-14mm (14-28mm equivalent on FF) lenses
>>>> that
>>>> are better than ANY Canon lens and most Nikon lenses. Give Samsung
>>>> some
>>>> time, if they get it right, they could have a fuller system.
>>> I'm not sure they have a lot of time, to be honest.
>>> When I last looked, Olympus lenses were rather expensive, and yet
>>> lacked
>>> image stabilisation, even in the telephotos.
>> Olympus do the image stabilisation in the camera, not the lens.
>> --
>> Chris Malcolm

> Thanks, Chris. If the Olympus lenses don't even have IS, there's less
> excuse for them being so expensive.

Might it be that Olympus's committment to a smaller sensor, which
they're hoping to push in pixel count as technology develops, means
that they're designing their lenses for smaller pixels, i.e. higher
resolution? That would be the sensible thing to do, IMHO -- it's the
way out of the small sensor trap that so many accuse them of having
got stupidly stuck in.

Chris Malcolm
From: Gary Eickmeier on

"Chris Malcolm" <cam(a)> wrote in message

> It doesn't have it all. It doesn't have MLU! :-)
> But it does have two excellent new features you didn't mention. The
> first is a big bright LCD with adaptive brightness which can easily be
> seen in weak sunlight. (The strong sunlight test is still a few months
> away in these northern latitudes :-)
> The second is that in addition to the secondary sensor live view which
> gives you fast AF with live view, you can also switch with one button
> press to image sensor live view with magnification up to pixel level
> all over the image. Makes critical manual focusing to the millimetre
> so easy it's a delight to use!

Interesting! That, along with the histogram and other obvious advantages of
live view make this a formidable camera. All the advantages of DSLR and EVF.
And superb resolution. Hell, I'm delighted with my A100, haven't found any
reason to replace it.... until now.

Gary Eickmeier

From: LOL! on
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:31:37 GMT, "David J Taylor"

>"Chris Malcolm" <cam(a)> wrote in message
>> Also IS isn't a fixed technology. It keeps improving. So if you want
>> the extra stop or so of extra IS that's just been developed you either
>> have to buy a new set of lenses, or just a new body, which you were
>> probably going to buy anyway. If your lenses are full of
>> electromechanical technology they're goiong to age a lot faster.
>> --
>> Chris Malcolm
>Yes, that's one point in favour of in-body IS, but having the viewfinder
>image stabilised is a much more practical benefit in my view. I rather
>suspect that the 3-4 stops we have now is perhaps enough, at least if you
>are photographing moving subjects.

How bizarre. With optical IS switched to "always on" (the worst possible
setting, except in unique situations such as ultra-low-light and video), I
have the image stabilized in my viewfinder too. You mean you can't get this
with your DSLRS? What a pity.

And still they avoid that ugly issue of optical IS imparting random
transverse chromatic aberrations in random shots which cannot be easily
removed by any editing software on earth.


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: Flying with cameras
Next: Nikon D3000 and a teleconverter