«

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 10:29:42 +0100, Alfred Molon
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, docnews2011
>@gmail.com says...
>> So I hate to be boring, but either Nikon or Canon would probably be a
>> more sensible choice of brand.
>
>What I don't like about Nikon or Canon is that their DSLRs do not have
>in-body IS. Why are these companies stubbornly refusing to add this
>feature?


Because in-body IS cannot perform as well as in-lens IS? Because
in-body IS cannot show the effect of IS in the viewfinder?

Both these factors are of interest to professionals and advanced
amateurs. But not to you, obviously.

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 10:20:24 +0000, Bruce wrote:

>>What I don't like about Nikon or Canon is that their DSLRs do not have
>>in-body IS. Why are these companies stubbornly refusing to add this
>>feature?
>
>
> Because in-body IS cannot perform as well as in-lens IS?

But it performs better than no IS at all. A lot of lenses from both
manufacturers don't have IS or an IS alternative. And if you have to buy
the IS version of every lens you want, it's going to be a lot more
expensive than in-body IS.

> Because in-body IS cannot show the effect of IS in the viewfinder?

Only in an optical viewfinder. An EVF or other live view mode shows the
effect perfectly.

--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com

In article <acd89$4b52ec3e$546accd9$(E-Mail Removed) et>,
Robert Spanjaard <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> And if you have to buy
> the IS version of every lens you want, it's going to be a lot more
> expensive than in-body IS.

lenses last longer than bodies. if you buy in-camera stabilization
you'll be buying it multiple times each time you get a new camera.

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 03:22:51 -0800, nospam wrote:

>> And if you have to buy
>> the IS version of every lens you want, it's going to be a lot more
>> expensive than in-body IS.
>
> lenses last longer than bodies. if you buy in-camera stabilization
> you'll be buying it multiple times each time you get a new camera.

I'm still using my first body (EOS 10D) with seven lenses. If all my
bodies last this long, it'll take at least 45 years before I reach my
seventh body.
I know some people can't stand it when their body isn't the newest model,
but bodies can last a long time when you concentrate on photography
instead of technology.

--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com

nospam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <acd89$4b52ec3e$546accd9$(E-Mail Removed) et>,
> Robert Spanjaard <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> And if you have to buy
>> the IS version of every lens you want, it's going to be a lot more
>> expensive than in-body IS.

> lenses last longer than bodies. if you buy in-camera stabilization
> you'll be buying it multiple times each time you get a new camera.

Not only that, but both kinds of image stabilisation keep being
improved. Suppose after several years you'd like to upgrade to get the
extra stop or two of the latest image stabilisation technology. If
your IS in the lenses you'll have to buy a complete new set of lenses!
But if it's in the body you don't have to buy anything, because you
got it already the last time you upgraded your body to get a better
sensor or whatever :-)

--
Chris Malcolm

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:55:27 +0100, Alfred Molon
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, docnews2011
>@gmail.com says...
>> Because in-body IS cannot perform as well as in-lens IS?
>
>Up to 5 five stops of gain (with in-body IS) is not bad, wouldn't you
>agree?


I agree that you will believe almost anything. ;-)

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:03:56 +0100, Alfred Molon
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Besides Nikon and Canon are companies aspiring to be the technology
>leaders in this field. Technology leaders who don't offer IS in their
>camera bodies.
>
>By the way, these companies were also laggards in introducing sensor-
>shift sensor cleaning in their bodies, as if dirty sensors didn't
>matter.
>
>Nikon and Canon are quite advanced in some areas, but in other areas
>they are very backwards.


Professionals and serious amateurs are less likely to be taken in by
the, bells, whistles, buttons and other unnecessary features that seem
to impress snapshooters. When something is both necessary and proven,
that's the time to put it on high end cameras, not before.

Given that Olympus and Panasonic have so little to offer in terms of
image quality, especially at high ISOs, they are almost obliged to
offer features that impress their inexperienced amateur customers.

On 1/17/10 PDT 10:15 AM, Alfred Molon wrote:
> A sensor cleaning system is an essential feature, unless you think that
> having dust spots all over the images is ok.

Absurd statement. With care, you don't get dust.

If you do, a manual cleaning is within range of most amateurs.

-
lsmft

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:15:35 +0100, Alfred Molon
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>A sensor cleaning system is an essential feature


I didn't say it isn't.

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:15:35 +0100, Alfred Molon wrote:

> A sensor cleaning system is an essential feature, unless you think that
> having dust spots all over the images is ok.

Ofcourse. But a manual cleaning toolkit is a system as well.

--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com