Re: When Good I.S. Goes Bad
- From: "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 09:26:45 GMT
Mark² wrote:
[]
In this case, the distinction isn't too significant, since the OP's
camera and lens are permanently attached to each other in this case.
With SLRs/DSLRs, the distinction is more significant, since the IS
function is entirely contained within the IS lens and is entirely
gone when that lanes is removed... :)
.... except for those DSLRs where the IS function is contained in the body,
and hence has the advantage that it can be used even with existing non-IS
lenses.
Cheers,
David
.
- References:
- When Good I.S. Goes Bad
- From: mutefan
- Re: When Good I.S. Goes Bad
- From: Daniel Silevitch
- Re: When Good I.S. Goes Bad
- From: Alan Browne
- Re: When Good I.S. Goes Bad
- From: Daniel Silevitch
- Re: When Good I.S. Goes Bad
- From: MarkČ
- When Good I.S. Goes Bad
- Prev by Date: Re: First Paying Gig - How much should I charge?
- Next by Date: Re: Which filter is best to put on a 50mm 1.4??
- Previous by thread: Re: When Good I.S. Goes Bad
- Next by thread: Re: When Good I.S. Goes Bad
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|