On 15/8/06, Toralf Lund, discombobulated, unleashed: >No, I still think it's a gimmick. And if it isn't, it might actually >allow morons who can't even hold their camera still, to take sharp >pictures, which would be even worse. But you'll never see me cheat like >that...
Ahar, I knew I prodded the bottom of the pond, something would stir ;-)) My take is this: I have one lens with image stabilisation and I absolutely love it and would not want to be without it. However, it's a telephoto zoom. On the flip side, I can't think why I would want to have IS in (say) a wide angle lens. I just can't fathom it. I suppose if you have shale reduction in the body, then it would allow the photographer to buy a cheaper, slower lens and hand-hold at a slower speed. I would prefer a faster lens, no anti-shake. I guess you pays yer money and takes yer choice. I think anti-shake is a Good Thing (because like any feature of the tools of our trade, it is not mandatory), but on the flip side, it's yet one more thing to Go Wrong? I remain open-minded. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
