Olympus dalliance with DSLRs over?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: John Navas on 25 May 2010 12:06 On Tue, 25 May 2010 13:54:25 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in <l2inv510i9n5pehrq6qtrs2kbj8bj7sc0f(a)4ax.com>: >On Tue, 25 May 2010 13:10:33 +0200, Alfred Molon ><alfred_molon(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>In article <5kjkv51udne8hg9ggllarporrnnb6p2hm7(a)4ax.com>, Bruce says... >>> I wonder why Sony abandoned the in-camera anti-shake of the Alpha >>> system, instead using an in-lens anti-shake system for NEX? >> >>Obviously not enough space in that tiny body for an in-camera anti-shake >>system. Seems like Sony cut the corners too much here. > >Or perhaps Sony finally realised that their in-camera system doesn't >work at all well. No change to other bodies would suggest otherwise. -- Best regards, John Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
From: SMS on 25 May 2010 12:29 On 24/05/10 7:55 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote: > But the IS in the Canon 70-200/4.0 IS is seriously amazing. Sharp images at > 1/15th (with a lot of care and elbows supported or locked) at 200mm, > reliably sharp images at 1/30 and 200mm. I doubt in-camera IS will be > competing, ever. And, of course, in-camera IS doesn't stabilize the > viewfinder image. Yes, that's an incredible lens. In-camera IS on D-SLRs (and other interchangeable lens cameras) is more cost effective, but has serious performance disadvantages, as all the experts agree.
From: SMS on 25 May 2010 12:33 On 25/05/10 1:22 AM, David J Taylor wrote: > > "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message > news:4bfadf8d$0$1585$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > [] >> For people moving to a D-SLR from a P&S or ZLR, they are unlikely to >> understand the advantages of in-lens VR/IS. > > They only need to look through the viewfinder with a long telephoto lens > attached! Watch the image stabilise when the VR is enabled. Little > understanding required - just a demonstration at the local shop. Very true. But as you can see from this thread, many people lack even the most basic critical thinking skills when it comes to evaluating the two systems. A salesperson tells them "in-camera IS is great, every lens you own or will every buy will have IS by default, and non-IS lenses are cheaper." The salesperson doesn't explain (if he or she even understands) the significant performance disadvantages of in-camera IS versus in-lens IS. So the buyer goes with in-camera IS and then can't stop talking about how much money they "saved."
From: John Navas on 25 May 2010 12:42 On Tue, 25 May 2010 09:33:27 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in <4bfbfbd8$0$1640$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>: >On 25/05/10 1:22 AM, David J Taylor wrote: >> >> "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message >> news:4bfadf8d$0$1585$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >> [] >>> For people moving to a D-SLR from a P&S or ZLR, they are unlikely to >>> understand the advantages of in-lens VR/IS. >> >> They only need to look through the viewfinder with a long telephoto lens >> attached! Watch the image stabilise when the VR is enabled. Little >> understanding required - just a demonstration at the local shop. > >Very true. But as you can see from this thread, many people lack even >the most basic critical thinking skills ... No kidding -- your own posts are proof. -- Best regards, John Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
From: John Navas on 25 May 2010 12:43
On Tue, 25 May 2010 09:29:49 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in <4bfbfafd$0$1642$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>: >On 24/05/10 7:55 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote: > >> But the IS in the Canon 70-200/4.0 IS is seriously amazing. Sharp images at >> 1/15th (with a lot of care and elbows supported or locked) at 200mm, >> reliably sharp images at 1/30 and 200mm. I doubt in-camera IS will be >> competing, ever. And, of course, in-camera IS doesn't stabilize the >> viewfinder image. > >Yes, that's an incredible lens. > >In-camera IS on D-SLRs (and other interchangeable lens cameras) is more >cost effective, but has serious performance disadvantages, as all the >experts agree. Not true. (What a shock.) -- Best regards, John Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams |