On 29/1/07, Tim Øsleby, discombobulated, unleashed: >I'm simply asking >for first hand experiences. First hand experiences are a lot more worth than >defensive marketing.
I have no experience of in-body SR, and I only have experience of one lens with in-lens IS (20-200 2.8 L IS). From where I'm standing, the I like the IS because I can see with my own eyes that it's working, although it does use battery power, and the lens is what some would consider big and heavy. I normally carry a camera weighing 24 lbs so to me the IS lens is a relief to shoulder about. I like the IS and have it switched on as a default. It does what it says on the tin, and I can't fault it. Had it since summer of 2004 and it has not skipped a beat. I also have a 2X converter but use it only extremely rarely as I don't like the image degredation. I don't have any other IS lenses, although I sometimes wish the 24-70 I use a lot had it. I find no need for IS on wider lenses. I'm hoping to pick up a 24mm lens in the not-too-distant, and if I had a choice of one with IS or one without, I'd pick the latter. If the Darkside offers in-body IS, I would guess that it will be in the prosumer range and I have no plans for any more bodies within a couple of years. I am waiting for a fix to full-frame vignetting, and then I anticipate a full-frame body by about 2010. HTH -- 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
