------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 23:00:00 +0100
From: "Daniel Rocha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EOS Re: VR vs IS !
De : Robert Meier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> That means they gained more then 3 stops!! Well, it
> always depends on the standard you set. At least it is
> the same for IS and VR.
yes, the most important thing is that it's the same for both IS & VR.... :)
- -- PhOTo - vOYAGe - GrAPhiSMe --
Portail : http://perso.magic.fr/drocha
I believe that it is usefull for Canon users to know what is happening
outside. An to compare. I am a Canon user but it was not always so; in some
moment I changed from another camera (a Konica T3). Coming back to the main
matter, Chasseur d'Images has a nice test comparing IS and VR. This is a
long, three pages, test, but i can say it in few words: Nikon 80-400 VR is a
lens with:
a. Good optical qualities but Canon, see the test graphic compared with
Nikon, is optically better.
b. VR works properly and even in some moments is better than Canon,
automatic paning and more quickly start on.
c. Canon Autofocus is far better, more quickly, more sure and more silent
That means Nikon has had a good start in this technology and that canon
needs react inmediatly.
I am a Canon EOS 1V user and, besides, a Nikon F-5 user, so not suspicious
of any bias. I have the 100-400 IS and surely will have in some months the
new Nikon VR. If so I'll give my impressions.
Kind regards
F�lix
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
