I do not think that IS in a lens involves simply rotating a lens , it involves moving a lens (mass) laterally. JCO
-----Original Message----- From: Lawrence Kwan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 2:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Minolta Maxxum wth BODY IS On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > with body IS, you don't need a motor in the lens > at all and you only need one motor system, in the body. > The motion is the sensor and that is a lot smaller > and lighter than lens elements so the motor > should be smaller and lighter and quieter than lens motors. Actually, the reverse is true. Image stabilization in the lens require much smaller movement as you are rotating the lens. And you have the freedom to choose where to place the stabilization element for the optimal position. Whereas in Minolta approach, you need a very large movement of the CCD in the focal plane to accomplish the same thing (the larger the CCD, the larger the movement)- and it must have been quite a technological feat. Lens image stabilization is tried and true. Minolta approach is innovative, but definitely a lot more complex. It remains to be seen if the reliability can match that of lens design. -- --Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.vex.net/~lawrence -- --Tungsten T3 Enhanced DIA Keyboard----Nokia Ringtone Convertor--
