Video cameras have digital image stabilization for years because they use CCD to capture images, which allows digital manipulation to achieve image stabilization. Obviously you can achieve IS by optical means, like IS lenses, which, for film cameras, is the only way to enjoy IS. I wonder: with the advent of DSLR, does it make more sense to do it in camera or in lens? I see the "in camera" approach more economical and suffers no mechanical wear and tear. And it allows all non-IS lenses to behave like IS, at least as far as the end results on the image file is concerned. What is your take?
I am still shooting on film and scan (Canon FS4000) then Photoshop. My strategy has so far been to concentrate on lens upgrade (I am not a pro) but stay with the same body. But I am now increasingly tempted by the DSLR but can not justify the cost, and I am wary about the rapid obsolescence. I will wait until a full frame DSLR that can produce Velvia like quality with EOS3 like AF and AE performance and at a price of no more than EOS3. That day may be long in the waiting but I have a few more years on my 630, which is still going strong after 15 years. Will I be able to say the same thing about a DSLR? BTW, the argument of multiplication factor may not swing many buyers. I didn't see it swing many buyers when APS SLR hit the market, which has a similar multiplication factor, albeit a different value. Thanks, Francis * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
