Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/03/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Ok you both know what you're talking about and are disagreeing about what compromises seem most favorable to you and your shooting. So here's a question: Canon was advertising somewhere recently about how the IS is *in the lens* where it "ought to be". I.e., they were turning the possible marketing problem of not having it in their cameras into a bragging point. So if you don't like it in the lens, why *not *have it in the camera (Doug)? And if you like it why can't it be in the camera instead (Henning)? What was Canon's point in the ad? (I mean what's that general argument about? Clearly some comapnies/designers think it's best to put it in the lenses and others are putting it in the cameras... What does this imply?)) Thanks ! you guys are a treasury of good solid well thought out information. Vince On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Doug Herr <wildlightphoto at earthlink.net>wrote: > Henning Wulff wrote: > > >If I'm standing on a boat and have to shoot at 1/30 of a second I'll > >generally get a higher quality image with the 100-400 IS than with a > >similar weight and cost 400/5.6 without IS. That's a valid > >comparison. If we're talking about shooting on land with support > >available and comparing the 100-400 IS with a 280/4 Apo-Telyt, that's > >not a valid comparison for a number of reasons. > > Why is the land comparison not valid if the boat one is? > > >The IS portion is a compromise. > > Exactly right. There's no perfect solution, and a great many people have > chosen to sacrifice some potential image quality for the reduced motion > blur, and I can see how that would result in better overall image quality > in > some circumstances. I'd rather risk more camera motion blur - because > subject motion often limits usably long shutter speeds - and not reduce the > lens' optical potential. > > Doug Herr > Birdman of Sacramento > http://www.wildlightphoto.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >