My view is that while many people might like the idea of IS, a much smaller number would actually be prepared to pay for it, so there's little point in putting it into a consumer camera. Those who really want/need it will be delighted to have it in a full frame body.
Meanwhile, I think we might hope for a successor to the *ist D before the summer, with perhaps better support for old lenses, and a much bigger buffer.
John
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 06:27:30 -0800 (PST), Rick Womer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It seems to me that Pentax and Minolta have travelled similar development paths in the past. For example, they both put pop-up flashes in high-level cameras, and both tried power zoom lenses. So, my guess is that Pentax will try body-based IS.
--- Martin Trautmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,
I like the Pentax *ist D, and I like the *ist Ds even more.
But the major, missing feature to me still is image stabilisation.
I've read former staments with interest, e.g. claims from Herbert Keppler that IS will be within the body.
Personally, I do expect IS within the body (as Konica-Minolta does by now). AFAIK there's no more electrical contact from the body to the lense that could provide power for stabilisation. This looks like an early decision against IS within the lense.
I guess that IS within the body is more complicated since the movements have to go further. I still wonder about the movements claimed for the Konica-Minolta sensors (which are far beyond reasonable understanding). But it's out of doubt that movements within the lense can be shorter.
What's your guess? Will we obtain anti-shake within the next two years?
Will there be any new DSLR within this time at all?
Thanks, Martin
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
-- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
