From: nospam on
In article <r0llv5djedg6tttjjll5ua9n6935k80cjk(a)4ax.com>, John Navas
<jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >As to better, in lens optical (VR / IS) is superior to in body sensor
> >moving in all cases - except those lenses that don't have it...
>
> Not necessarily. Both approaches have pros and cons, and can be made to
> work quite well in practice. There is no one best system.

in-lens works better at longer focal lengths where stabilization
matters. it can also be precisely tuned to the specifics of a lens
versus needing to work over a wide range of focal lengths.

in-camera works with all lenses, which is nice if you have older
lenses, but a new camera system with new lenses does not have that
issue.

the choice of in-lens stabilization is a very good one.
From: John Navas on
On Mon, 24 May 2010 12:38:10 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote
in <240520101238101031%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>:

>In article <r0llv5djedg6tttjjll5ua9n6935k80cjk(a)4ax.com>, John Navas
><jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >As to better, in lens optical (VR / IS) is superior to in body sensor
>> >moving in all cases - except those lenses that don't have it...
>>
>> Not necessarily. Both approaches have pros and cons, and can be made to
>> work quite well in practice. There is no one best system.
>
>in-lens works better at longer focal lengths where stabilization
>matters. it can also be precisely tuned to the specifics of a lens
>versus needing to work over a wide range of focal lengths.
>
>in-camera works with all lenses, which is nice if you have older
>lenses, but a new camera system with new lenses does not have that
>issue.
>
>the choice of in-lens stabilization is a very good one.

One of the drawbacks of in-lens you conveniently ignore is cost.
As I wrote, there is no one best system.
--
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: nospam on
In article <5fllv51p9k0reaeutuk5rl7j6mpj8am1lc(a)4ax.com>, John Navas
<jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:

> One of the drawbacks of in-lens you conveniently ignore is cost.

i didn't ignore it. in-camera is not free either. everything has a cost.

> As I wrote, there is no one best system.

true, but in this case, in-lens is clearly the right choice.
From: John Navas on
On Mon, 24 May 2010 12:44:31 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote
in <240520101244313882%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>:

>In article <5fllv51p9k0reaeutuk5rl7j6mpj8am1lc(a)4ax.com>, John Navas
><jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> One of the drawbacks of in-lens you conveniently ignore is cost.
>
>i didn't ignore it. in-camera is not free either. everything has a cost.
>
>> As I wrote, there is no one best system.
>
>true, but in this case, in-lens is clearly the right choice.

In your opinion. My opinion differs.
--
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
On 24/05/10 10:18 AM, Bruce wrote:

<snip>

> Meanwhile, Micro Four Thirds is a spectacular success. It makes sense
> for Olympus to concentrate on Micro Four Thirds.

Huh? Why don't you ever see anyone with a micro 4:3 camera. Go to a
popular vista point in a place like Yosemite where it looks like a D-SLR
convention is being held and look for a micro 4:3 camera. I've never
seen one, at least not in March 2010. Meanwhile you see loads of the
latest Canon and Nikon models. I've also never seen one for sale in a
store that sells interchangeable lens cameras.