Winsor Crosby wrote:
> I agree. Also it does not have to be a choice between the IS/VR and
> high shutter speed. As IS/VR is improved (and Canon claims 4 stops
> improvement with its IS now) it is likely to exceed the improvements
> due to smooth high ISO.
>
It's not a freebie, though. The IS lenses are a great deal heavier,
bulkier and more expensive than non IS lenses. And there seems to be a
magic, but not exactly known size and weight beyond which a lens doesn't
go out with me much. I've gone back and forth about the 100-400/4 L lens
so much I'm a little dizzy.
> It seems to me that the main advantage is for small cameras for
> which do have the high ISO noise problem. It allows them to take some
> very nice and sometimes intimate pictures with something you can slip
> out of your pocket and use.
>
I certainly agree there, and have just made an almost impulse purchase
of an IS P&S to test that and a couple of other things.
> It is an argument Mike Johnston has made. He likes in-camera
> stabilization because it is useful even at the wide end of the zoom.
I assume here you mean even with the wide lenses that aren't IS? IS
works for all the focal length range of a lens that has it.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|