artnaz: Up to 4.5 stops shake reduction? Since when has in-camera stabilization become better than stabilization in the lens?
many years ago.buy a camera with it and you won't be surprised.
In body IS is the right way and since the digital came it always was. And I'm not only talking about stabilized every lens, including old manual lenses, or 2cm thick pancakes. Pentax introduced few years back rotational correction, something that in-lens IS can never correct for and today, Oly also included in the OM-D IS correcting for shift as well as rotational shaking. Canon and Nikon are still clinging on their in-lens IS but they will give up eventually. Unfortunately, we have to pay for their lack of vision (and greediness) till then. And carry unnecessary inferior and oversized lenses :(
No IS, no flash, no tilting LCD and ugly - it won't sell regardless of price.Sigma has a great sensors and tons of lenses but they should fire their designers and marketing analysts; what a wasted potential for how many years now? :(
Paul Farace: Dear Faintandfuzzy:Quit your complaining!!! Three year old design?? It is a hellava tool (wish I had one!) -- the Nikon F was top line for 13 years, the F2 for eight years, the F3 was in the line up for 15+ years!!! OK, film was a mature technology, but digital tech has somewhat leveled a bit, thank goodness. New releases every 12 months just drives sales and marketing, not better product development!
if you think D700 cannot be made better for low light.... you don't know low light ;)and yes, I own D700 and yes, I shoot in low light. with 1.4-2.8 lenses and iso 6400 and sometimes up and for fast moves in dancing, it's often not enough