> The market (many at the market) says that camera based SR is best at short
> focal lengths, and lens based IS is best at long focal length.
>
> What do you who have used SR for a while say? Truth or myth?
> We have had the theoretical debate, but what does practical use tell us?
>
That sentiment probably stems from a white paper that Canon put
out trying to poo-poo in-body SR. I'd say the best way to describe it is
that in-lens is without a doubt the best way to do it (since the lens is
designed to have it work the best). It also happens to be the most
expensive way to do it. Having it in-body makes EVERY lens a SR lens.
For in-body SR, long lenses require lots of movement from the
sensor, so it's conceivable the maximum benefit is smaller. All I can say
is after playing with a friend's K100D and a Tele-Tak 400/5.6, there's no
way in hell I'd get a clean shot hand-held at 1/10sec without it. I'll be
buying a SR camera in the not-too-distant future.
I think Canon is going to have to eat their hat WRT in-body SR.
They may be able to fake it by making a cheapie kit lens with IS, but I
think the market will desire in-body SR.
-Cory
--
*************************************************************************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
*************************************************************************
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
