[Leica] Micro 4/3rds

[wildlightphoto at earthlink.net (Doug Herr)]

Vince Passaro 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)?

As long as the camera can maintain accurate planar positioning of the sensor 
I don't have a problem with it in the body.  Given their investment in the 
technology, Canon's statement about where it 'ought to be' seems a little 
self-serving, or you might say they're trying to make lemonade out of 
lemons.  As I wrote earlier, in the lens was the only option in the film 
era, but we're beyond that now.


> 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?))

Different design theories.  There isn't a 'right' or 'wrong', there are 
often multiple means of accomplishing a goal (in this case, camera 
steadiness).  Sometimes due to history or marketing one method will become 
more popular than another but that doesn't mean it's the 'right' way, just 
that it's popular.  There will often be circumstances where one approach to 
the problem will have advantages over another and other circumstances where 
the the first approach fails or has disadvantages.

An example of this is in many automotive components.  Restraint systems 
differ, several fuel types are available, drive systems and body styles 
differ.  To claim that one design is the correct way of making a car (or 
camera) is short-sighted and doesn't consider needs and uses other than 
one's own.

Doug Herr
Birdman of Sacramento
http://www.wildlightphoto.com