Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by 1200mk, Aug 23, 2007.
is there anything bad about having in-body IS?
not as specialized to each individual lens so it's not as good
i would say it will probably work just as well as in lens up to about 135-150mm focal range, anything after that i would say the shift would need to be greater, therefor the specialized in lens would be much more effective
The farther the stabilization element is from the center of gravity, the less effective the stabilization becomes.
So, the longer the telephoto lens you are using, the farther the IS element would be away from the center of gravity, causing the stabilization to become less effective. There are other issues with in body stabilization, but that's the big one. It would be fine for using a 50mm, but it would suck donkey choad when using a 200+mm.
God I wish people would let this argument go. In body stabilization is great for consumers, but it's absolutely fucking retarded for anything else.
I am going to LEAVE Canon if they don't give me in-body IS
what about in body IS and lens IS the ultimate stability
Would there really be a need for both at the same time?
The downfall is you would own a sony.
You mean you don't shoot 300mm macro shots from the inside of tornados?