How are they "outclassed" except in your mind? Sony (i.e. Konica-Minolta), Pentax, and Olympus make fine cameras, but their technology is hardly innovative, and makes not enough difference to make enough difference.
--
I have had no problems framing at 300mm using my inbody IS. I did at first glance like the 30D with the IS lens because of the stable viewfinder. But I have also run into people who get something simluar to motion sickness with a stablized lens,because the eye and the inner ear are out of sync. So it may not be universally best... though I see some advantage at very long lenghts.
Since the most popular FF DSLR is a Canon 5D with a target market that will also buy more espensive lenses. This is circular reasoning.
If the system is all IS in body.. then it doesn't matter about "moving it from boy to body and all A-Mount DLSRs Sony and KM are IS enabled.
Look at the price of 6 year old bodies vs 6 year old lenses its pretty obvious. Even in the film days the Body features and designs changed every 3 years or so, while some lense designs would last a decade.. this alone would reduce the need to "upgrade" Unless you think it is common for people to spend money for a new version of what they already have that is working.
Agreed.. so you are agreeing there is no definative proof as to which is better. It will vary by the needs of the user.
This is a shot on an old shaking train car with my 10-20.. I am glad I had some IS helping me out. It is one of my favorite pictures of my daughter from when she was 2 yrs old. Below it is a shot I took with one hand holding the camera out of the train window again with the 10-20... those that assume IS with wider lenses isn't useful, may just have not imagined the possiblities...
I completely agree--nobody is constrained to one or the other type of IS. Canon and Nikon could and would put it in low end bodies if needed to protect that market. Conversely, Pentax et al could and would put it in high-end telephoto lenses if they decided it was needed to break in to that market.
So how many short focal length (
Guess that means those Hasselblads are just junk because more Rebels are sold.
--
Are there any pro-style camera bodies with in-camera stabilization? I didn't think there was anything yet. Canon has a very large selection of pro-grade lenses--especially in the telephoto range. So pro's that need that sort of reach would go Canon anyway, IS or not.
I disagree. IS (aka SR) allows me get by without a tripod for waterfall shooting. I'm talking in the
I don't think so.
Yes. Since Canon and Nikon have MUCH larger pro communities, the quantities of 70-200 f/2.8 lenses they sell dwarf that of Sony/Minolta. When you mass produce something, costs go down. I wouldn't be surprised if Canon sold 1,000 70-200's for each that Sony sells.
Because a professional will buy many more bodies over a career than lenses. Let's say a Canon user buys the 17-55 f/2.8 IS and a 70-200 f/2.8 IS. He's purchased two IS units. Over a 40 year career he's likely to buy ten cameras, but has only paid for two IS units.
You may be unfamiliar with chess. Checkmate is what you say when you win.
Except that the signal magnitude is larger when the distance between the linear accelorometers is greater. Long lenses allow larger displacements than the body.
Then how about 10s or hundreds of millimeters?
I know they are.
So will the camera manufacturers who are using it, I guess.
