bg_ads wrote:
I do have couple of lenses but not expensive ones..Nikon 55-200mm
f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR Zoom and 35-108 3.5-5.. Therefore you can't
really say I made a big investment on lenses..
As for the live veiw it does matter to me since i'm more into
portraits, macro and indoor shots..also the image stability plays a
major role..so here is my question, which is better to have an image
stability system like the Alpha700 and the E-3 or the VR lense on a
canon or nikon?
Thank you for your response i really found it helpful..
Hmm, I was a bit concerned by your post in this Forum to be honest as I thought it would descend into fanboyism (although, I suspect a little bit of that has creeped in as thus far the recommendations have been Sony and Sony 2 (i.e. Nikon, which has a Sony sensor).
My other problem is that all the cams you mentioned are excellent. And the considerations are so numerous I reckon my post would have gone on for pages and pages.
One aspect I have not yet seen mentioned (which may have been mentioned in posts below that I have yet to read) is the simply irrational or personal. For me, it's a case of not wanting to follow a herd, so I would rule out (for myself) Canon and Nikon.
Then there is things like aesthetics, feel and weight to consider. Further things to consider is international and national support (i.e. the number of repair centres both manufacturer and independent) and accessories (you will find that nearly every accessory you can think of is made for Canon and Nikon cams and other cam brands are something of an afterthought).
I like Oly and would recommend them but there is one niggling thing in my mind and that is the future. If you want to buy into a system safe in the knowledge that ten years from now you will be still using that system, I fear that Oly is not that system as I really can't see how Oly can continue to insist on keeping that small sensor size for much longer.
As far as image stabilisation goes I would put the issues down like this:
User experience
==========
Optical image stabilisation offers the best user experience by FAR. How? Well, if for example you are zooming in heavily, due to the highly magnified view the slightest tremor of your hand will result in massive shakes of your viewfinder image sometimes making it a horrid and/or impossible task to focus hand-held.
With optically stabilised systems the view itself becomes stabilised making for a much nicer experience.
In-body systems (e.g Sony, Oly) on the other hand are a bit like religion in that you can't see what's working for you but you must simply have faith that it (I.S.) is working for you. But I should qualify that by saying that Sony's Alpha system offers the best in-body image stabilisation experience because even though you still get that horrid wobbly image in the viewfinder at high magnification, there is an electronic meter akin to a stereo's graphic equaliser within the viewfinder that shows you how hard the image stabilisation is having to work to counter your hand shake.
Cost
===
With in-boy I.S. you pay for the feature just once and then EVERY lens you attach to your camera gets stabilised.
With lens based systems you pay an additional premium (of about 1/3) for EVERY stabilised lens you buy; buy five stabilised lenses and you pay for I.S. five times over.
Overal benefits
==========
Overall, the in-body systems offers the best benefit to the user (especially the Sony system due to its in-viewfinder indication of stabilisation effort). This is because EVERY lens you attach to such a body is stabilised whether that be manual focus lens, short focal length prime, or telephotos; and imagine the wonders of shooting in low light with an f1.4 lens that is ALSO stabilised.
For the likes of Canon or Nikon systems you just don't get short focal length zooms or primes that have I.S. built-in, plus the lenses that do have I.S. built-in are often slightly larger and heavier
If Nikon, Canon and others using in-lens I.S. provided I.S. in ALL types of lenses then I would say that the lens based system would be best to use even if it meant paying a premium for EVERY such lens.
I.S. effectiveness
===========
I have seen numerous debates as to which system, in-body or in-lens, is the most effective, and I even read a very infomative post/article some time ago by David Kilpratick as to the differences (in terms of effectiveness) between the two.
However, in my view, after having read all the views and "evidence", there really is no significant difference between the two systems .
That's it, my tuppence/€0.02/2 cents worth.
I hope my post/views prove helpful?
Regards,
