On 11/25/06 10:43 PM, "Markus Maurer", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This may be a stupid question but does SR/IS have any negative side effects? If properly implemented, there should be no appreciable side effects on either system (SR or IS). In theory, whenever any lens group is added, such as in the case of IS, it is one more element of image degradation. Canon has a few lenses in both IS and non-IS versions and I do not recollect any articles which say one is superior to the other, but then I am not really a Canon user and do not monitor their lists etc. Looking at the diagram of Canon's IS implementation, it looks an assembly of small lenses, gyro and other small parts and feel a bit fragile (resistance against shock etc). In-body implementation (SR) seems mechanically sturdier and robust. Other than that, I have not experienced any negative side effects on Canon IS. It really saved me a lot of difficult shots. Initially, I felt like I was dependent on IS in certain situations, but now I consider either SR/IS just another tool, and far less dependent on it except in real low light or telephoto situation. I am too lazy to lag around tripod, or put on external flash all the time, and SR/IS are really handy for people like me :-). Perhaps other people have different experiences including some negatives, but I think SR/IS are great features. Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
