Yep, because apart from the actually rather expensive 75-300, all those $5000-$10000 IS telephoto's were not extremely expensive, esoteric, nearly 100% commercial items, not mainsteam photo market items.
Yeah, just everybody has a 600/4 tele. -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: > OK, so change my post to before CANON DSLRS existed. And > all those early DSLRS were extremely expensive, > esoteric, nearly 100% commercial items, not mainsteam photo > market items like film cameras were back in the mid 90's. > My point is these early IS lenses canon put out were not > aimed at the esoteric, virtually no population DSLRS at > the time of their release, they were primarily for the > film market obviously. > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Adam Maas > Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 3:03 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS? > > > Nope, > > The first DSLR (Kodak DCS100 based on the F3HP) was introduced > commercially in 1991. > > The first 35mm camera with IS (A Nikon VR P&S, can't recall the model) > was introduced 3 years later in 1994. Canon IS lenses would show up a > year later in the form of the craptacular 75-300 IS USM. The first > really useful IS lens was introduced in 1997 (300 f4L IS USM) and the > super teles would show up in 1999, same year as Nikon's D1, which began > the modern era of DSLR's and the end of the early Kodak DSLR era. > > Canon's first in-house DSLR, the D30, showed up less than a year after > the introduction of the full-line of IS Super-Teles. Kodak did make a EF > > mount DSLR prior to that, in fact the Canon mount DCS-1 was introduced > the same year as the 75-300 IS USM lens(1995). > > -Adam > > > J. C. O'Connell wrote: >> I think you guys are forgetting the fact that Canon introduced IS >> ("in-lenses") long before DSLRs even existed and you cant even do >> "in-body" image stabilization with film cameras. So there was NO >> debate at the time which was better, "in-lenses" was infinately better > >> at the time, because "in-body" was impossible with film cameras. Cut >> them a little slack, huh? jco >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >> Of K.Takeshita >> Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 9:00 AM >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS? >> >> >> On 1/28/07 8:41 AM, "Cory Papenfuss", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >>> I think Canon is going to have to eat their hat WRT in-body SR. >> "Rumour" says that's exactly what Canon is contemplating. Who knows? >> But it indicates that both methods are toss-up. Canon can no longer >> charge high price for IS lenses for sure. >> >>> 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. >> Again, "rumour" says that this is the approach Nikon is contemplating, > >> i.e., trickling down their VR onto even cheaper lenses. >> >> Ken >> >> > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
