I think I'm past the point of buying another camera w/o IS. For the
naysayers I have the following questions:
1.) Do they have any proof that in body IS doesn't work as well? I
see a lot of words, no testing. Looks like the Pentax body IS may
work BETTER - that my opinion, probaby more valid than others.
The proof is in the partical solution this system presents. You as
most proponents are forgetting the autofocus, metering and
viewfinder, all three systems very important (at least as
important) to the final image and all three not part of the
solution.
2.) Are people really saying that every single lens they own is an
IS one? If not, wouldn't the non-IS lenses they own be improved by
body IS? Hmmm, how many primes have IS? Now everyone can. Why is
that such a big deal.
Why is IS needed in every lens. It's not! Because IS only really is
necessary in maybe 10% of the lenses (long telephoto mostly) and
useful for at most 10% of the shots (the useful shutter speed range
for IS is quite limited and most pictures are limiting the
usefulness themselves because they involve motion on the subject
side) taken with these. So it's at most 1% of pictures that benefit
from having IS. Of those 1% I'm willing to bet that more than 90%
can be taken by using a tripod or monopod, and one can rely more on
these measures than any IS system as the effecitivity relies
heavily on your own capabilities. Have a stressful week, drink too
much coffee and the parameters that worked last week will not work
for you now. Both the monopod and especially the tripod will
eliminate this inconsistency problem once and for all.
3.) Lens buyers seem to come in two categories - either "this lens
w/b perfect if it had IS"
I chose most of my lenses without IS because (having had first hand
experience with the intricacies of IS and it's inconsistency) I
drew the conclusion that I better handle the situation by resorting
to the proper measures than try to continue taking short cuts.
On the one lens in my lineup that has IS I have it disabled most of
the time when taking the shot - not so when framing and focusing on
my tripod, then the IS is really helpful as any movement I make
while focusing will be transferred to the tripod and make the
viewfinder image less stable and hard to judge focus. But on the
final image I have mirror lock up enabled - which will have a much
greater positive impact on the final image than in body IS would
have. If the 400 f/5.6L lens been officially available where I live
(no tedious import procedure involved with warranty and shipping
risks) I would have that instead of the IS lens I have because of
the better optical performance of the prime against the zoom lens.
or "how come this lens is so expensive -
I didn't really want IS so why did they put it in?" In body IS will
solve this.
No it won't. It will put one more mechanical system that can and
will break into the camera body, thereby increasing the risk of
complete failure.
I really don't see why people are afraid of in body IS. Cost
doesn't seem to be an issue, there's usually an off option, so
what's not to like?
The cost may be hidden but it is there to pay. It comes in less
camera reliability (one more system to break), more noise because
no heat sink can be connected to the sensor, one more system that
will need servicing. Already there are reports coming in from
people that have dead D7D or D5D's that are unservicable by Sony.
I'm pretty sure that one of the systems that can't be fixed because
of the lack of spare parts is the in body AS as Sony has changed
the design for the A100...
--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch
Visit my gallery at
http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/461808
