KT Takeshita played with his extremely optimistic version of the magic 8 ball and proclaimed:
"In-camera movement compensation is physically impossible with film camera (even I can tell. Didn't Leica or Contax try it before? :-). But with a small and light CCD element, suddenly the movement compensation of CCD became possible. In fact. K-M already did it successfully and thought Pentax had patents filed for in-camera IS. I am sure each camera mfr has its own system and related patents but it seems to be very logical that all camera mfrs would eventually make in-camera IS available. Pentax has the strongest reason why they should do this because of the backward compatibility of lenses. Even if Pentax might have to license part of technology from others, I am willing to pay for the extra :-)." >From what I remember, those IS patent threads weren't very specific. I wonder if the Pentax IS patents are for the system they are using in their current binoculars rather than future cameras. Stabilizing a sensor wouldn't seem to be the easiest thing in the world to do and I'm not sure it would work. If the lens is moving and the sensor is stationary then what would the captured image look like? I would think that in camera stabilization would require some type of stabilizing lens element in front of the sensor rather than stabilizing the sensor itself. How does the IS work in their binoculars anyway? Right now I am in that pleasant state that occurs between the time when I have a great idea and the time when someone points out how obviously boneheaded my idea is. Tom Reese
