That's a valid argument, for film shooters.
Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J. C. O'Connell Sent: 25. november 2006 23:49 To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm It certainly was against your better judgement, I specifically mentioned that some were done with bodies and some were done with lenses, but the net effect of all of the them is that the image tracks the camera movement to keep the recorded image from blurring.... Nobody mentioned it but the lens technique has one major advantage over the body technique, and that is it will work for film as well digital whereas its not really possible to do IS for film in the body... jco -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 1:34 PM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm In a message dated 11/24/2006 11:29:31 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IS, VR, Shake reduction, etc. They are all the same concept ( done in either lenses or bodies ) with different trade names.... jco ======= Sigh. Against my better judgment, I respond. They are different. One of the biggest differences is that some are in camera and some are in lens. This makes quite a difference as regards usage. One of the reasons I will probably switch back to Pentax from Canon, after I hear more reports and read reviews. Marnie aka Doe And since I have no K or M lenses, I need no $5-$1,000 part. Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
