Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Feb 13, 2008.

  1. RichA

    dj_nme Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    David J Taylor wrote:
    > dj_nme wrote:
    > []
    >
    >>At least be fair and specify comparible lenses for both.
    >>You forgot to have both of the Nikon lenses as VR lenses, as both the
    >>lenses specified by you for the Pentax K100D can be used with Pentax
    >>in-body AS.
    >>I'm sorry, but the Nikon D40 18-55mm kit lens isn't a VR lens, so your
    >>price comparison is invalid.
    >>
    >>The closest listed Nikon lens at Warehouse Express is the 18-55mm
    >>f/3.5-5.6G AF-S VR DX at GBP 179.
    >>
    >>Warehouse Express doesn't sell a D40 without a kit lens, so a Nikon
    >>D40 with an all VR lens line-up would cost out at:
    >>Nikon D40 (with non VR 18-55mm kit lens)- GBP 299
    >>18-55mm VR - GBP 179
    >>55-200mm VR - GBP 179
    >>
    >>total - GBP 657
    >>
    >>A fair comparison makes the Nikon GBP 158 more expensive than the
    >>Pentax.

    >
    >
    > Had there been a D40 + 18-55mm VR kit, I would have quoted that, of
    > course. There are those that argue "you don't need IS below 50mm", but I
    > don't agree with that.


    Neither do I.
    I do a fair bit of low-light photography, so really apreciate using AS
    on wide angle lenses.

    > I suspect that the VR will become the standard
    > "kit" lens (as it is for the most recent cameras), and then the prices
    > will be similar. You obviously don't need two 18-55mm lenses as your GBP
    > 657 includes.


    Well, no.
    You don't really absolutely require both Nikon 18-55mm lenses, but with
    out that you'd have to unbalance the comparison by giving Nikon an
    unfair price advantage of a non-VR kit lens.

    > A pity you can't get a Pentax 70-300mm zoom, or is that just too new or
    > one which Warehouse Express don't stock? I see a 55-300mm on DPReview
    > from January 2008.


    Pentax has a 50-200mm zoom listed on their UK website, but this doesn't
    have the reach of a 300mm long end and there is no "find retailer" link
    as there is on the USA website.
     
    dj_nme, Feb 19, 2008
    #61
    1. Advertising

  2. Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    dj_nme wrote:
    []
    > You don't really absolutely require both Nikon 18-55mm lenses, but
    > with out that you'd have to unbalance the comparison by giving Nikon
    > an unfair price advantage of a non-VR kit lens.


    Well, the purpose was really to show that buying IS/VR lenses isn't (at
    least with some NIkon lenses) the great price uplift that it was claimed
    to be. A bonus if you are buying from scratch.

    If you already have a bagful of non-IS Pentax lenses, the Pentax in-body
    IS is cheaper, but at the cost of a poorer system to use.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 20, 2008
    #62
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    John Navas Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:22:46 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
    <azQuj.10284$>:

    >dj_nme wrote:
    >[]
    >> You don't really absolutely require both Nikon 18-55mm lenses, but
    >> with out that you'd have to unbalance the comparison by giving Nikon
    >> an unfair price advantage of a non-VR kit lens.

    >
    >Well, the purpose was really to show that buying IS/VR lenses isn't (at
    >least with some NIkon lenses) the great price uplift that it was claimed
    >to be. A bonus if you are buying from scratch.
    >
    >If you already have a bagful of non-IS Pentax lenses, the Pentax in-body
    >IS is cheaper, but at the cost of a poorer system to use.


    There are pros and cons to both systems, and needs are different, so
    that's not a valid overall generalization.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 20, 2008
    #63
  4. Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    John Navas wrote:
    > On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:22:46 GMT, "David J Taylor"

    []
    >> If you already have a bagful of non-IS Pentax lenses, the Pentax
    >> in-body IS is cheaper, but at the cost of a poorer system to use.

    >
    > There are pros and cons to both systems, and needs are different, so
    > that's not a valid overall generalization.


    The desired result is the same - to enable camera-shake to be reduced, and
    it's easy to demonstrate that in-lens IS/VR provides a superior user
    experience.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 20, 2008
    #64
  5. RichA

    John Navas Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:42:12 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
    <EJRuj.10302$>:

    >John Navas wrote:
    >> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:22:46 GMT, "David J Taylor"

    >[]
    >>> If you already have a bagful of non-IS Pentax lenses, the Pentax
    >>> in-body IS is cheaper, but at the cost of a poorer system to use.

    >>
    >> There are pros and cons to both systems, and needs are different, so
    >> that's not a valid overall generalization.

    >
    >The desired result is the same - to enable camera-shake to be reduced, and
    >it's easy to demonstrate that in-lens IS/VR provides a superior user
    >experience.


    Again, there are pros and cons to both systems, and needs are different,
    so that's not a valid overall generalization. For example, while
    in-lens stabilization can be more effective on long focal lengths, many
    users don't use long focal lengths, and in-camera stabilization works
    quite well on shorter focal lengths, plus has the advantage of working
    with good lenses that lack in-lens stabilization. "Different stokes for
    different folks."

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 20, 2008
    #65
  6. Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    John Navas wrote:
    []
    > Again, there are pros and cons to both systems, and needs are
    > different, so that's not a valid overall generalization. For
    > example, while in-lens stabilization can be more effective on long
    > focal lengths, many users don't use long focal lengths, and in-camera
    > stabilization works quite well on shorter focal lengths, plus has the
    > advantage of working with good lenses that lack in-lens
    > stabilization. "Different stokes for different folks."


    Try the test I suggested. Note that I suggested a 200mm or 300mm lens.
    And you are missing the point - it is /not/ about the quality of the
    stabilisation, it is about the quality of the user experience with long
    lenses. Having a stable image in the viewfinder is worth quite a lot, and
    is an advantage frequently ignore when comparing the two systems. I also
    commented that in-body had advantages in some circumstances.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 20, 2008
    #66
  7. RichA

    John Navas Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:48:20 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
    <8sUuj.10357$>:

    >John Navas wrote:
    >[]
    >> Again, there are pros and cons to both systems, and needs are
    >> different, so that's not a valid overall generalization. For
    >> example, while in-lens stabilization can be more effective on long
    >> focal lengths, many users don't use long focal lengths, and in-camera
    >> stabilization works quite well on shorter focal lengths, plus has the
    >> advantage of working with good lenses that lack in-lens
    >> stabilization. "Different stokes for different folks."

    >
    >Try the test I suggested. Note that I suggested a 200mm or 300mm lens.


    Been there; done that. In fact I normally use the stabilization mode on
    my FZ8 (as on my FZ5 before it) that does not stabilize the viewfinder
    image with no difficulties, even at 430 mm zoom (35 mm equiv), any more
    than when I use standard binoculars. The reason I do that is
    stabilizing the viewfinder inevitably reduces the effectiveness of
    stabilization when taking the picture, since the stabilizer will tend to
    have reduced movement available.

    >And you are missing the point - it is /not/ about the quality of the
    >stabilisation, it is about the quality of the user experience with long
    >lenses.


    As I wrote, not all users use long lenses.

    >Having a stable image in the viewfinder is worth quite a lot, and
    >is an advantage frequently ignore when comparing the two systems.


    Not all users are willing to trade off more effective stabilization of
    the photo for stabilization of the viewfinder.

    >I also
    >commented that in-body had advantages in some circumstances.


    You only called it cheaper, and then immediately called it poorer.

    That you personally prefer in-lens stabilization is all well and good,
    but that doesn't mean it's the best system for everyone else. Not all
    of us have hands so shaky that we need stabilization of the viewfinder.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 20, 2008
    #67
  8. Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    John Navas wrote:
    > On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:48:20 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    > <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
    > <8sUuj.10357$>:
    >
    >> John Navas wrote:
    >> []
    >>> Again, there are pros and cons to both systems, and needs are
    >>> different, so that's not a valid overall generalization. For
    >>> example, while in-lens stabilization can be more effective on long
    >>> focal lengths, many users don't use long focal lengths, and
    >>> in-camera stabilization works quite well on shorter focal lengths,
    >>> plus has the advantage of working with good lenses that lack in-lens
    >>> stabilization. "Different stokes for different folks."

    >>
    >> Try the test I suggested. Note that I suggested a 200mm or 300mm
    >> lens.

    >
    > Been there; done that. In fact I normally use the stabilization mode
    > on my FZ8 (as on my FZ5 before it) that does not stabilize the
    > viewfinder image with no difficulties, even at 430 mm zoom (35 mm
    > equiv), any more than when I use standard binoculars. The reason I
    > do that is stabilizing the viewfinder inevitably reduces the
    > effectiveness of stabilization when taking the picture, since the
    > stabilizer will tend to have reduced movement available.
    >
    >> And you are missing the point - it is /not/ about the quality of the
    >> stabilisation, it is about the quality of the user experience with
    >> long lenses.

    >
    > As I wrote, not all users use long lenses.
    >
    >> Having a stable image in the viewfinder is worth quite a lot, and
    >> is an advantage frequently ignore when comparing the two systems.

    >
    > Not all users are willing to trade off more effective stabilization of
    > the photo for stabilization of the viewfinder.
    >
    >> I also
    >> commented that in-body had advantages in some circumstances.

    >
    > You only called it cheaper, and then immediately called it poorer.
    >
    > That you personally prefer in-lens stabilization is all well and good,
    > but that doesn't mean it's the best system for everyone else. Not all
    > of us have hands so shaky that we need stabilization of the
    > viewfinder.


    It sounds as if you have not actually tried the test I suggested, with a
    Nikon 300mm IS lens on a DSLR. The stabilisation performance Panasonic
    and of the Nikon/Canon systems is comparable, as shown by independent
    reviews, but the in-lens of the Nikon and Canon system do not need to
    offer the mode-1 mode-2 choice of the Panasonic.

    In-lens can produce an additional benefit for the photographer compared to
    in-body, particularly for long lenses.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 20, 2008
    #68
  9. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > Been there; done that. In fact I normally use the stabilization mode on
    > my FZ8 (as on my FZ5 before it) that does not stabilize the viewfinder
    > image with no difficulties, even at 430 mm zoom (35 mm equiv), any more
    > than when I use standard binoculars. The reason I do that is
    > stabilizing the viewfinder inevitably reduces the effectiveness of
    > stabilization when taking the picture, since the stabilizer will tend to
    > have reduced movement available.


    viewfinder stabilization is a side-effect of having it done in the
    lens, a system which is *more* effective at longer focal lengths, not
    less.

    > >And you are missing the point - it is /not/ about the quality of the
    > >stabilisation, it is about the quality of the user experience with long
    > >lenses.

    >
    > As I wrote, not all users use long lenses.


    it helps with short lenses too, just not as significantly.

    > >Having a stable image in the viewfinder is worth quite a lot, and
    > >is an advantage frequently ignore when comparing the two systems.

    >
    > Not all users are willing to trade off more effective stabilization of
    > the photo for stabilization of the viewfinder.


    no tradeoff necessary. they get both.

    > That you personally prefer in-lens stabilization is all well and good,
    > but that doesn't mean it's the best system for everyone else. Not all
    > of us have hands so shaky that we need stabilization of the viewfinder.


    resorting to insults, i see.
     
    nospam, Feb 20, 2008
    #69
  10. Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    nospam wrote:
    > In article <>, John Navas
    > <> wrote:

    []
    >> That you personally prefer in-lens stabilization is all well and
    >> good, but that doesn't mean it's the best system for everyone else.
    >> Not all of us have hands so shaky that we need stabilization of the
    >> viewfinder.

    >
    > resorting to insults, i see.


    Yes, John Navas has lost any further replies from me on this thread.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 20, 2008
    #70
  11. RichA

    John Navas Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:29:05 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
    <lzYuj.10453$>:

    >John Navas wrote:
    >> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:48:20 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    >> <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
    >> <8sUuj.10357$>:


    >>> Try the test I suggested. Note that I suggested a 200mm or 300mm
    >>> lens.

    >>
    >> Been there; done that. In fact I normally use the stabilization mode
    >> on my FZ8 (as on my FZ5 before it) that does not stabilize the
    >> viewfinder image with no difficulties, even at 430 mm zoom (35 mm
    >> equiv), any more than when I use standard binoculars. The reason I
    >> do that is stabilizing the viewfinder inevitably reduces the
    >> effectiveness of stabilization when taking the picture, since the
    >> stabilizer will tend to have reduced movement available.
    >>
    >>> And you are missing the point - it is /not/ about the quality of the
    >>> stabilisation, it is about the quality of the user experience with
    >>> long lenses.

    >>
    >> As I wrote, not all users use long lenses.
    >>
    >>> Having a stable image in the viewfinder is worth quite a lot, and
    >>> is an advantage frequently ignore when comparing the two systems.

    >>
    >> Not all users are willing to trade off more effective stabilization of
    >> the photo for stabilization of the viewfinder.
    >>
    >>> I also
    >>> commented that in-body had advantages in some circumstances.

    >>
    >> You only called it cheaper, and then immediately called it poorer.
    >>
    >> That you personally prefer in-lens stabilization is all well and good,
    >> but that doesn't mean it's the best system for everyone else. Not all
    >> of us have hands so shaky that we need stabilization of the
    >> viewfinder.

    >
    >It sounds as if you have not actually tried the test I suggested, with a
    >Nikon 300mm IS lens on a DSLR.


    Only if you ignore what I wrote: "been there, done that" (with
    comparable Canon lenses).

    >The stabilisation performance Panasonic
    >and of the Nikon/Canon systems is comparable, as shown by independent
    >reviews, but the in-lens of the Nikon and Canon system do not need to
    >offer the mode-1 mode-2 choice of the Panasonic.


    Panasonic is also in-lens, provides state-of-the-art performance, and
    mode settings add useful performance flexibility. Not having that kind
    of mode capability limits performance, as I described. Canon likewise
    has a mode switch, albeit for a different purpose (panning).

    >In-lens can produce an additional benefit for the photographer compared to
    >in-body, particularly for long lenses.


    Principally for long lenses, particularly for those who have trouble
    holding a camera steady.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 20, 2008
    #71
  12. RichA

    John Navas Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:36:01 -0800, nospam <> wrote
    in <200220080836014829%>:

    >In article <>, John Navas
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> Been there; done that. In fact I normally use the stabilization mode on
    >> my FZ8 (as on my FZ5 before it) that does not stabilize the viewfinder
    >> image with no difficulties, even at 430 mm zoom (35 mm equiv), any more
    >> than when I use standard binoculars. The reason I do that is
    >> stabilizing the viewfinder inevitably reduces the effectiveness of
    >> stabilization when taking the picture, since the stabilizer will tend to
    >> have reduced movement available.

    >
    >viewfinder stabilization is a side-effect of having it done in the
    >lens, a system which is *more* effective at longer focal lengths, not
    >less.


    You're apparently misinterpreting what I wrote. Read more carefully.

    >> >And you are missing the point - it is /not/ about the quality of the
    >> >stabilisation, it is about the quality of the user experience with long
    >> >lenses.

    >>
    >> As I wrote, not all users use long lenses.

    >
    >it helps with short lenses too, just not as significantly.


    In-body stabilization works as well as in-camera for wide to short
    telephoto. It's also effective at longer focal lengths, just not as
    capable at handling large movements.

    >> >Having a stable image in the viewfinder is worth quite a lot, and
    >> >is an advantage frequently ignore when comparing the two systems.

    >>
    >> Not all users are willing to trade off more effective stabilization of
    >> the photo for stabilization of the viewfinder.

    >
    >no tradeoff necessary. they get both.


    Not so -- when stabilization is activated during preview, it can limit
    movement available when taking the image, as I described previously.
    This is simple physics.

    >> That you personally prefer in-lens stabilization is all well and good,
    >> but that doesn't mean it's the best system for everyone else. Not all
    >> of us have hands so shaky that we need stabilization of the viewfinder.

    >
    >resorting to insults, i see.


    Actually just a simple statement of fact.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 20, 2008
    #72
  13. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > >> >Having a stable image in the viewfinder is worth quite a lot, and
    > >> >is an advantage frequently ignore when comparing the two systems.
    > >>
    > >> Not all users are willing to trade off more effective stabilization of
    > >> the photo for stabilization of the viewfinder.

    > >
    > >no tradeoff necessary. they get both.

    >
    > Not so -- when stabilization is activated during preview, it can limit
    > movement available when taking the image, as I described previously.
    > This is simple physics.


    the lens stabilizes the image and the viewfinder benefits. they're
    unrelated, and there is no limitation of movement due to activating it
    during preview.

    > >> That you personally prefer in-lens stabilization is all well and good,
    > >> but that doesn't mean it's the best system for everyone else. Not all
    > >> of us have hands so shaky that we need stabilization of the viewfinder.

    > >
    > >resorting to insults, i see.

    >
    > Actually just a simple statement of fact.


    actually, it's just being rude, in addition to being irrelevant.
     
    nospam, Feb 20, 2008
    #73
  14. RichA

    John Navas Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:46:44 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
    <UPYuj.10465$>:

    >nospam wrote:
    >> In article <>, John Navas
    >> <> wrote:

    >[]
    >>> That you personally prefer in-lens stabilization is all well and
    >>> good, but that doesn't mean it's the best system for everyone else.
    >>> Not all of us have hands so shaky that we need stabilization of the
    >>> viewfinder.

    >>
    >> resorting to insults, i see.

    >
    >Yes, John Navas has lost any further replies from me on this thread.


    I think you're being way too sensitive, especially for Usenet, but
    I nonetheless sincerely apologize for having offended you. That was not
    my intention.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 20, 2008
    #74
  15. RichA

    m II Guest

    John Turco wrote:

    >> Olympus, Sony and Panasonic are all doing pretty well.
    >> BTW, you left out Kodak. ;)

    >
    >
    > Hello, John:
    >
    > And a very serious omission it was, with Kodak ranking among the U.S.
    > and worldwide leaders, in digicam sales, today.



    I understand it's right up there with GE cameras..






    mike
     
    m II, Feb 20, 2008
    #75
  16. RichA

    John Navas Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:44:04 -0800, nospam <> wrote
    in <200220080944049837%>:

    >In article <>, John Navas
    ><> wrote:


    >> Not so -- when stabilization is activated during preview, it can limit
    >> movement available when taking the image, as I described previously.
    >> This is simple physics.

    >
    >the lens stabilizes the image and the viewfinder benefits. they're
    >unrelated, and there is no limitation of movement due to activating it
    >during preview.


    Again, not so. If, for example, the floating correction element has
    4 mm maximum movement in a given direction, and has been moved 2 mm to
    stabilize during preview, there's only 2 mm left in that direction if
    the shutter is pressed, limiting the benefit of stabilization.

    >> >> That you personally prefer in-lens stabilization is all well and good,
    >> >> but that doesn't mean it's the best system for everyone else. Not all
    >> >> of us have hands so shaky that we need stabilization of the viewfinder.
    >> >
    >> >resorting to insults, i see.

    >>
    >> Actually just a simple statement of fact.

    >
    >actually, it's just being rude, in addition to being irrelevant.


    I'm not the one being rude.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 20, 2008
    #76
  17. RichA

    John Navas Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:49:52 GMT, John Navas
    <> wrote in
    <>:

    >On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:46:44 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    ><-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
    ><UPYuj.10465$>:


    >>Yes, John Navas has lost any further replies from me on this thread.

    >
    >I think you're being way too sensitive, especially for Usenet, but
    >I nonetheless sincerely apologize for having offended you. That was not
    >my intention.


    p.s. Should I happen to offend you in the future, please know that's
    it's not intentional, and that I'll be happy to apologize again.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 20, 2008
    #77
  18. RichA

    Mr. Strat Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > p.s. Should I happen to offend you in the future, please know that's
    > it's not intentional, and that I'll be happy to apologize again.


    The rest of us would be happy if you just took your crappy Panasonic
    camera and the crappy images you produce with it - and just went away.
    Ditto for the Motorola cell phone group.
     
    Mr. Strat, Feb 20, 2008
    #78
  19. RichA

    John Navas Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:29:05 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
    <lzYuj.10453$>:

    >It sounds as if you have not actually tried the test I suggested


    For what it's worth, I found this a bit offensive.
    Will you now afford me the same courtesy?

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 20, 2008
    #79
  20. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    nospam wrote:
    >
    > In article <>, John Turco
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > > > .. yes, of course, but that doesn't benefit the view through the
    > > > > viewfinder, which is not stabilised. Try comparing in-lens and in-body
    > > > > with a hand-held 300mm lens on a windy day and you'll see why the in-lens
    > > > > is so much preferable to in-body.
    > > >
    > > > that's true but in-body stabilizes virtually all lenses. both systems
    > > > have their advantages and disadvantages.

    > >
    > > Hey, if David J. Taylor wants to pay a price premium, in order to enjoy
    > > the nebulous benefits of "in-lens image stabilisation" - well, then,
    > > more power to him. :-J

    >
    > it's not that much of a price premium and not at all nebulous. in-lens
    > stabilization offers some distinct advantages, such as a stabilized
    > viewfinder as well as outperforming in-camera stabilization at longer
    > focal lengths. as i said, both systems have their advantages.



    Hello, nospam:

    You're quite right...if Nikon's way provides no overall edge over the Pentax
    approach, then let David continue wasting his pounds, if he so desires. <g>


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Feb 23, 2008
    #80
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    956
    gunner
    Feb 11, 2007
  2. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,158
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  3. Charles
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    558
    Ray Fischer
    Jan 29, 2010
  4. LOL!
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    663
    Ray Fischer
    Jan 30, 2010
  5. Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    493
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Feb 7, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page