wildcat
Senior Member
Like the Panasonic's kit 14-45mm?
Panasonic Lumix GF1
- Thread starter Nature88
- Start date
- Status
Like the Panasonic's kit 14-45mm?
wildcat
Senior Member
Like Leica and Canikon? :embrass:
well...he was replying to someone asking "why no inbody IS" anyway
E-P2 i think is gonna be released in dec,so if you can wait till dec,why not?
To Davidsim,not sure if micro four third lenses with IS will be bigger,heavier and more expensive or not,because they're already very small and light,the only lens that caught me by surprise is the Panasonic 14-140 cause for its size,to me it feels heavy
Ya....aparently Leica,Canikon are the only manufactures who make IS in lens,thinking about,they are,along with Panasonic,Olympus,Pentax & Sony all use in body IS
FilterFunk
Senior Member
just a correction, Panasonic uses lens IS which they call Mega OIS.
Image Stabilization (IS - Canon)
Vibration Reduction (VR - Nikon)
Mega OIS (Panasonic and Leica)
Super Steady Shot (SSS - Sony)
Optical Stabilization (OS - Sigma)
Vibration Compensation (VC - Tamron)
Shake Reduction (SR - Pentax)
Image Stabilization (IS - Canon)
Vibration Reduction (VR - Nikon)
Mega OIS (Panasonic and Leica)
Super Steady Shot (SSS - Sony)
Optical Stabilization (OS - Sigma)
Vibration Compensation (VC - Tamron)
Shake Reduction (SR - Pentax)
Last edited:
I am for keeping IS in the body, especially for M4/3 whose primary aim is to provide a size advantage vs aps-c.
That way i can use decently bright small primes (20mm f1.7?) which are stabilized by the body. IS in body should probably also reduce the size/weight of every lens.
Looking at how Sony is selling their lens with no stabilization for a comparable price as canikon equivalants (70-200mm, 70-300mm, 70-400mm) it probably allows for a better profit margin since they can save cost on adding stabilisation on the lens but still sell at a comparable price as its stabilized competitors.
Of course you can also argue that the money saved in manufacturing was spent on making the glass better, and lens stabilization is proven to work better than on body.
Above are just my opinions and personal observations.
That way i can use decently bright small primes (20mm f1.7?) which are stabilized by the body. IS in body should probably also reduce the size/weight of every lens.
Looking at how Sony is selling their lens with no stabilization for a comparable price as canikon equivalants (70-200mm, 70-300mm, 70-400mm) it probably allows for a better profit margin since they can save cost on adding stabilisation on the lens but still sell at a comparable price as its stabilized competitors.
Of course you can also argue that the money saved in manufacturing was spent on making the glass better, and lens stabilization is proven to work better than on body.
Above are just my opinions and personal observations.
clubgrit
Senior Member
There is no end to digital advancement and changes, so enjoy it while it's here, if you can.
Unlike decades old film cameras, still love them to death, no need to dispose while film is still available. These digital cameras are more on the "disposable" side later ... just like computer gear. But we can make full use of them while we have them, definitely productive tools while they last. I still have my 1.3 megapixel Olympus digital camera somewhere, one of the best in its day, and now it doesn't work ... I better dispose of it already.
.
Unlike decades old film cameras, still love them to death, no need to dispose while film is still available. These digital cameras are more on the "disposable" side later ... just like computer gear. But we can make full use of them while we have them, definitely productive tools while they last. I still have my 1.3 megapixel Olympus digital camera somewhere, one of the best in its day, and now it doesn't work ... I better dispose of it already.
.
Bridgerock
Senior Member
wildcat
Senior Member
I think there merit when people talk about the benefits of having in-body or in-lens IS. I think there is merit when people compare between an Olympus which uses in-body IS versus Panasonic which uses in-lens IS. What I find irritating is people who ask "why Panasonic never build their IS in-body" :dunno:
Isn't it obvious that people who build their system around in-lens IS will NOT build in-body IS? No point asking whether in-lens IS is bigger or more expensive, right? If that is an issue, just get the E-P1. I mean, I don't go about whining why Olympus don't build in-lens IS. Just make do with the system you choose.
Things I do whine about is when Panasonic, which does not have in-body IS, produce lens which do not have IS (like the 7-14mm and 20mm). There may be a reason (make the lens smaller maybe?) but to me, you make a system out of in-lens IS means your lens should have IS. But that's a different story :embrass:
Isn't it obvious that people who build their system around in-lens IS will NOT build in-body IS? No point asking whether in-lens IS is bigger or more expensive, right? If that is an issue, just get the E-P1. I mean, I don't go about whining why Olympus don't build in-lens IS. Just make do with the system you choose.
Things I do whine about is when Panasonic, which does not have in-body IS, produce lens which do not have IS (like the 7-14mm and 20mm). There may be a reason (make the lens smaller maybe?) but to me, you make a system out of in-lens IS means your lens should have IS. But that's a different story :embrass:
Actually, it's very similar to why Olympus, which does not have in-lens IS, produce bodies which do not have IS (like the E-4x0 series)... ;p
That said, is IS really a major factor?
wildcat
Senior Member
Some have mentioned it isn't, but after trying out, I found that it really is very useful. Even at 1/125 shutter speed, when shooting from inside a moving car with vibrating engines, etc. Maybe I haven't learnt how to use the Panasonic 7-14mm properly yet (a lot of difference to shoot with this lens) but I don't have same problems shooting at lower shutter speed with my 45-200mm (which should actually magnify the issue due to the zoom). It's my own personal experience so for me, IS is important. It may not be for other people.
Last edited:
i think its more of to suit the market,different cameras for different levels,like E-5X0 and the E-4X0 series,E-5X0 series have in body IS for newbies or people who have slightly bigger budgets,whereas the E-4X0 bodies are smaller which makes a better backup camera and for people with lower budgets,that's from my point of view anyway
No.
In fact the direct opposite would happen - one system would attempt to compensate for the other, literally cancelling each other out.
oh yah, wat u say makes sense too. i tot at first it's like some viscous material keeping the sensor or lens in the central position when shake, so both means even more likely to be kept central. But now that u mentioned, i agree it's more likely both made to compensate by moving back to central position and tats where cancelling out occurs. thanks for the info! 
Nature88
Member
The only thing I whine about is Pany is that user cannot use 3rd parties battery on its system, which is gonna blow a hole inside my pocket. :bsmilie: Intend to get G1 or GF1. But after reading about Pany's action to lock up system to prevent the use of 3rd parties battery kills my thought to support Pany system.
P.S: I am still a student hence the $100 plus battery is ex to me. :embrass:
blueskye168
Senior Member
oh yah, wat u say makes sense too. i tot at first it's like some viscous material keeping the sensor or lens in the central position when shake, so both means even more likely to be kept central. But now that u mentioned, i agree it's more likely both made to compensate by moving back to central position and tats where cancelling out occurs. thanks for the info!
Yup, that's what my thoughts too
- Status
Similar threads
