On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 21:18:36 -0400, J. C. O'Connell wrote: >**IF** the minolta scheme ends up working as good for DSLRs as putting >the IS in the lenses, >Canon/Nikon/Pentax will have no choice but to put it in their DSLRs too >to keep up. Its far more cost effective to have one system in the >body instead of a IS system in every lens....Minota would kill them on >the price of the lenses because theirs wouldn't need the IS systems in >the lenses. >If that happened and only film bodies needed IS in lenses, IS lenses >would >go extinct because camera MFGRs are not going to sell products good only >for film cameras >anymore..
Some thoughts I have on the whole IS thing. I'm concerned about the conductors which transmit the data from the sensor (which will move to do the image stabilizing) to the rest of the electronics (which don't move). There will be upto several hundred small adjustments during each exposure using IS. these movements stress the conductors and eventually they will fail. This will result in the loss of entire rows data from the sensor. In lens IS can give you an IS image in the viewfinder. IS in the camera can't. In camera IS needs to move the sensor assembly, but in lens IS pivots the lens element around a central point - not moving it as such just changing the direction it is pointing (less effort involved than moving the whole lens). IS only adjusts for vertical and horizontal movement, not rotation or forward/backward movement. My problem is more often moving subjects than camera shake, so IS doesn't mean a lot to me. Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon
