Re: In-camera/In-lens IS
- From: Steven Wandy <swandy@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 19:18:37 GMT
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 10:34:05 -0500, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
RahQ5@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Which is better? I got a Sony Alpha 350 for Xmas, with 2 lens that don't
seem to have IS. The 18-70 and the 75-300.
According to the manual, it is in the camera. Is there any difference in
quality?
I have to buy CF cards for it, which is surprising, since I thought all
Sonys used only MS cards.Probably have to go to Ebay for a MS/CF adapter
for it if I want to use memory sticks. Thanks!
In camera anti-shake is not as effective as in-lens IS/VR. You canThis is not necessarily true. There are some in-camera systems that
expect 2 stops (maybe a bit more) of effectiveness v. 3 - 4 stops with
in-lens IS/VR.
give more than 2 stops. (Olympus on the E3/E30 is supposed to be
better than that and I believe some of the higher end Sony's also.)
However since the in-lens systems are made specifically for that focal
length, they are generally better.
But as you point out next:
Advantage is that all Sony (Minolta) lenses will benefit from thein-camera will work with all lenses - you don't have to constantly
anti-shake.
purchase the more expensive and generally larger and heavier lenses
with the IS built in.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: In-camera/In-lens IS
- From: Alan Browne
- Re: In-camera/In-lens IS
- References:
- In-camera/In-lens IS
- From: RahQ5
- Re: In-camera/In-lens IS
- From: Alan Browne
- In-camera/In-lens IS
- Prev by Date: Re: In-camera/In-lens IS
- Next by Date: Re: In-camera/In-lens IS
- Previous by thread: Re: In-camera/In-lens IS
- Next by thread: Re: In-camera/In-lens IS
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
