Graywolf said: > Is there any reason, really, why image stablization needs to communicate > with the camera? I would think the whole thing could be built into the lens, > the camera doesn't need to know that some of the lens elements are moving to > compensate for vibration.
The only reason I can think of is bulk, but I don't know how bulky it would have to be. But if someone came up with an image stabilizing teleconverter for less than $200, I'd be liable to buy it. I think I'd like that more than a specific lens.
