Olympus dalliance with DSLRs over?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: David J. Littleboy on 25 May 2010 20:58 "nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:250520101744416856%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... > In article <xsCdnV1GttOE82HWnZ2dnVY3go-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, David J. > Littleboy <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote: > >> Uh, no. IS claims to "fix" up to "n" stops of shake. That's the _exactly >> the >> same_ excursion for every lens, whatever the focal length. > > as the focal length gets longer, the same amount of shake causes a much > larger movement. that's why you need a faster shutter speed to 'freeze' > it. Yes. Which is why the _excursion_ at the focal plane is the same, whatever the focal length. (The excursion would only be longer if the same shutter speeds were used, but you don't use the same shutter speeds. You still have to use faster shutter speeds with longer lenses for IS.) -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan
From: nospam on 25 May 2010 21:20 In article <8IednW0aApV572HWnZ2dnVY3gosAAAAA(a)giganews.com>, David J. Littleboy <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote: > > The angle change from sensor displacement is much less significant than > > degradation of optical quality and Bokeh from lens element movement. > > Funny thing that the IS/VR lenses actually work and consistently cough up > great images. indeed they do and nobody complains about bokeh. > Theory is nice, but it needs to be informed by actual reality. (Which in > this case is that in-lens is noticeably better than in-camera, if you can > afford the lenses.) that depends on the lens. for some, a stabilized version is not much more than a non-stabilized version. the canon 70-200 is $100 more than the sony 70-200 and the sony used to be more money, as i recall.
From: John Navas on 25 May 2010 21:28 On Wed, 26 May 2010 10:01:12 +0900, "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote in <8IednW0aApV572HWnZ2dnVY3gosAAAAA(a)giganews.com>: >"John Navas" <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message >news:2tqov51b7mtqlhqiv5so7ab8mv8te36oc7(a)4ax.com... >> The angle change from sensor displacement is much less significant than >> degradation of optical quality and Bokeh from lens element movement. > >Funny thing that the IS/VR lenses actually work and consistently cough up >great images. As do non-IS/VR lenses, with and without in-body stabilization. >Theory is nice, but it needs to be informed by actual reality. (Which in >this case is that in-lens is noticeably better than in-camera, if you can >afford the lenses.) Not true, as I've already explained. Photography is about photographs, not equipment. -- 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: David J. Littleboy on 25 May 2010 21:35 "nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <8IednW0aApV572HWnZ2dnVY3gosAAAAA(a)giganews.com>, David J. > Littleboy <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote: > >> > The angle change from sensor displacement is much less significant than >> > degradation of optical quality and Bokeh from lens element movement. >> >> Funny thing that the IS/VR lenses actually work and consistently cough up >> great images. > > indeed they do and nobody complains about bokeh. > >> Theory is nice, but it needs to be informed by actual reality. (Which in >> this case is that in-lens is noticeably better than in-camera, if you can >> afford the lenses.) > > that depends on the lens. for some, a stabilized version is not much > more than a non-stabilized version. the canon 70-200 is $100 more than > the sony 70-200 and the sony used to be more money, as i recall. Well, comparing to Sony isn't all that meaningful, since they're such a small player prices are rather random. For Canon users, the premium for IS is quite steep. They sweeten it up a bit by giving you slightly better optics. (Well, usually: IMHO, the 24-105/4.0 IS isn't sharp enough to justify the price and weight. Sigh.) -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan
From: David J. Littleboy on 25 May 2010 21:38
"John Navas" <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:s5uov5l528v2pqnnlnhv0smba57v4bq3d5(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 26 May 2010 10:01:12 +0900, "David J. Littleboy" > <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote in > <8IednW0aApV572HWnZ2dnVY3gosAAAAA(a)giganews.com>: > >>"John Navas" <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message >>news:2tqov51b7mtqlhqiv5so7ab8mv8te36oc7(a)4ax.com... > >>> The angle change from sensor displacement is much less significant than >>> degradation of optical quality and Bokeh from lens element movement. >> >>Funny thing that the IS/VR lenses actually work and consistently cough up >>great images. > > As do non-IS/VR lenses, with and without in-body stabilization. > >>Theory is nice, but it needs to be informed by actual reality. (Which in >>this case is that in-lens is noticeably better than in-camera, if you can >>afford the lenses.) > > Not true, as I've already explained. Explanations are nice, but actual performance is what counts. > Photography is about photographs, not equipment. A good photographer uses his equipment to the best of its abilities, so it's only incompetent photographers who aren't limited by their tools. -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |