Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/03/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I'm an IS fan myself now that I'm 'over 60' and can't seem to hold a camera as rock-solid as I used to. I just wish Olympus would come out with a smaller micro 4/3 body like the G1/GH1. I like the viewfinder in the Panasonics (those add-on viewfinders just don't cut it with my eyesight) but IS sure would be nice when I use my Leica lenses! Jim On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Vince Passaro <passaro.vince at gmail.com> wrote: > Ok you both know what you're talking about and are disagreeing about what > compromises seem most favorable to you and your shooting. So here's a > question: Canon was advertising somewhere recently about how the IS is *in > the lens* where it "ought to be". ?I.e., they were turning the possible > marketing problem of not having it in their cameras into a bragging point. > > So if you don't like it in the lens, why *not *have it in the camera > (Doug)? > > > And if you like it why can't it be in the camera instead (Henning)? > > What was Canon's point in the ad? (I mean what's that general argument > about? Clearly some comapnies/designers think it's best to put it in the > lenses and others are putting it in the cameras... What does this imply?)) > > Thanks ! you guys are a treasury of good solid well thought out > information. > > > Vince > > > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Doug Herr <wildlightphoto at > earthlink.net>wrote: > >> Henning Wulff wrote: >> >> >If I'm standing on a boat and have to shoot at 1/30 of a second I'll >> >generally get a higher quality image with the 100-400 IS than with a >> >similar weight and cost 400/5.6 without IS. That's a valid >> >comparison. If we're talking about shooting on land with support >> >available and comparing the 100-400 IS with a 280/4 Apo-Telyt, that's >> >not a valid comparison for a number of reasons. >> >> Why is the land comparison not valid if the boat one is? >> >> >The IS portion is a compromise. >> >> Exactly right. ?There's no perfect solution, and a great many people have >> chosen to sacrifice some potential image quality for the reduced motion >> blur, and I can see how that would result in better overall image quality >> in >> some circumstances. ?I'd rather risk more camera motion blur - because >> subject motion often limits usably long shutter speeds - and not reduce >> the >> lens' optical potential. >> >> Doug Herr >> Birdman of Sacramento >> http://www.wildlightphoto.com >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >