Are IS lenses doomed ?

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
e.com...
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 06:25:15 -0800, Skip wrote
(in article ):




"VC" wrote in message
...
snip a bunch of words
There is a very small advantage in having IS in the lens but it is not
significant enough to grant double and triple cost of the same quality
lenses.
What do you guys think ?

I keep seeing this bandied about as the premium for IS/VR, but nowhere do
I
see it in actual practice.

That is because it does not exist. Among Nikon lenses VR is about a
$200-$250
premium, not even 1/2 again as much as a comparable lens. the double and
triple cost thing is more Sony disinformation. That company is beginning
to
irritate me some. Can't they do anything honestly?


They seem incapable of it. They're beginning to seriously irritate me, too.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

In article , Neil
Harrington writes

"Prometheus" wrote in message
...
In article , David Littlewood
writes

------- Cut, on sensor and lens multiplier or divider ---------

Personally don't see why a term is required. It's an image size ratio,
everything else works as before; why not call it image size ratio? Better,
since the "ratio" is to a film format which will become increasingly
irrelevant to new generations of photographers, eventually it will be
enough to just quote size, as I said

Why not quote the angle of view that the lens gives with the sensor? Most
users are not interested in the focal length per se. I realise that macro
work and photometry can require more than the angle of view.

And long lenses require more too. You're quite right, angle of view is the
important thing -- but only with normal to wide-angle lenses. Users could in
time get used to the idea that "28mm equivalent" meant "75 degrees corner to
corner" and end up just calling such a lens a 75-degree lens. There is a
small fly in that ointment, in that third-party lenses made in more than one
mount would be slightly different on a Nikon than on a Canon, 1.5x and 1.6x
focal length multipliers respectively and the necessary adjustments to
angle, but those adjustments in most cases would be small.

With long lenses however it's the magnification that the user is interested
in, not the angle of view. Sure, one is necessarily related to the other,
but for example calling a 200-400mm zoom a
12-degree-20-minute-to-6-degree-10-minute lens gets a little unwieldy, isn't
very informative for most users -- and is only correct for the 24x36 format
anyway.

Magnification depends on the focal distance as well as the focal length,
it is independent of the "multiplier factor". For macro you are
interested in the angle of view and the focal distance, which is why I
said that "I realise that macro work and photometry can require more
than the angle of view".

So I think using an appropriate multiplier to relate sensor focal lengths to
some familiar standard continues to be useful, and while there's nothing
cosmically significant about the 35mm format at least it is a familiar
standard, and by far the most familiar one.

It is a convenience that most people will understand, I made my
suggestion half in jest, with far more variation in sensor size than
there was in film size it becomes important to know that there is more
than focal length to consider, although most of the cameras have fixed
lens without any focal length marks it is probably not a great problem.

--
Ian G8ILZ
There are always two people in every pictu the photographer and the viewer.
~Ansel Adams

Skip wrote:
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
e.com...
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 06:25:15 -0800, Skip wrote
(in article ):




"VC" wrote in message
...
snip a bunch of words
There is a very small advantage in having IS in the lens but it is
not significant enough to grant double and triple cost of the same
quality lenses.
What do you guys think ?

I keep seeing this bandied about as the premium for IS/VR, but
nowhere do I
see it in actual practice.

That is because it does not exist. Among Nikon lenses VR is about a
$200-$250
premium, not even 1/2 again as much as a comparable lens. the double
and triple cost thing is more Sony disinformation. That company is
beginning to
irritate me some. Can't they do anything honestly?


They seem incapable of it. They're beginning to seriously irritate
me, too.

They've irritated me for a long time.
It was with clenched teeth that I finally broke down and bought their
uniquely small/powerful/light SZ notebook computer, which makes for what I
think is the perfect travel/flight laptop.

I'm very computer savvy, and yet the couple times I had to deal with their
customer service/tech support, I was literally BLOWN AWAY with their lack of
professionalism and knowledge--even at their "second tier" level of
"support." I found that *I* was *educating THEM* about their own product,
because my (to me) basic research in shopping meant I knew more about it
than they did. Truly pathetic on their end. I love the laptop, though.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Prometheus wrote:
Why not quote the angle of view that the lens gives with the sensor?
Most users are not interested in the focal length per se. I realise that
macro work and photometry can require more than the angle of view.

Yes, that seems like a good idea. Call an angle an angle and a
focal length a focal length.

Stating everything relative to 35mm full-frame is silly, especially
if it's not even what most people use.


--
--Bryan

"Bryan Olson" wrote in message
. net...
Prometheus wrote:
Why not quote the angle of view that the lens gives with the sensor? Most
users are not interested in the focal length per se. I realise that macro
work and photometry can require more than the angle of view.

Yes, that seems like a good idea. Call an angle an angle and a
focal length a focal length.

Stating everything relative to 35mm full-frame is silly, especially
if it's not even what most people use.


--
--Bryan

Well, with so many sensor sizes, and proportions, on the market, 35mm
probably seems like the best to pick for a standard, since most of the
digital cameras, both point and shoot and DSLR, are similar in size, or at
least started out that way, to 35mm film cameras. And, originally, most of
the customers who migrated to digital came there from 35mm film. What
standard would you propose?

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

VC wrote:
The release of Sony Alpha with the image stabilization in camera ( although
this is not new) highlighted the fundamental problem with Canon.
What do you guys think ?

Obviously a contentious issue with so many responses, let me just
summarize;

Sony may be master of VideoCams but Canon and Nikon will never be in
any serious danger when it comes to DSLR, Sony are just not taken
seriously by Photog's, especially with wild claims that Sony make.

IS is not a panacea, it's not necessary at higher shutter speeds, slows
down the autofocus and doesn't kick in in certain situations.

It adds a lot to the cost of the lens, it's another thing that can go
out of adjustment or fail, you probably wont see a huge difference in
your images.

A person with the steadiest hands in the World still wont be able to
take night shots longer than 1 second without getting motion blur, IS
or not.


When amateurs ask me for advice on which Compact Camera to buy I tell
them;

If you're budget is 200, spend 100 on books or lessons, you will take
much better shots.

Forget about Megapixels, Lenses are 75% of the Camera, make sure the
Lens has an f Stop of 2.8 or better.

Don't get tiny camera with a tiny lens, some compacts are 10MP but the
Lens is only 1/4 the size of the Sensor.

Buy a Camera from a company that makes cameras, not Stereos, iPods or
Toasters, stick with Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Leica, Fuji, Olympus and
maybe Kodak but not Samsung, Panasonic, Casio and previously unknown
names. The better quality cameras are made in Japan, the cheapest in
Taiwan or China.

NUMBER ONE and MOST IMPORTANT, use a good quality Tripod. The best
Image Stabilization that money can buy is a Tripod.

I set up my camera on a Tripod and was taking a shot with a 28 to 135
IS Lens. I was shooting a Ship, out to sea a great distance away. As I
was playing with the DOF I noticed the ship would move to the right and
the IS would keep trying to shift it back to the focal point at the
center of the frame. I had to refocus and re-adjust every time. By the
time I eventually got the shot setup the Ship had disappeared out of
the frame. The lessons I learned from this was that IS is not necessary
with a Tripod in most cases and that IS slows down the process.

I learned a lot from all the responses and especially the original
question. I hope to get a flood of responses now with counter arguments
and other points of view so I can learn more about this. I'm debating
buying another lens and I'm wondering should I focus on "L" lenses or
"IS" Lenses, I'm leaning towards "L", please help me make up my mind.
I'm also debating Prime Lenses over Zoom, any thoughts?, Thanks,
Cheers, Joe

In article , Bryan
Olson writes
Prometheus wrote:
Why not quote the angle of view that the lens gives with the sensor?
Most users are not interested in the focal length per se. I realise
that macro work and photometry can require more than the angle of view.

Yes, that seems like a good idea. Call an angle an angle and a
focal length a focal length.

Stating everything relative to 35mm full-frame is silly, especially
if it's not even what most people use.

In fact at least one of the pseudo-SLRs has a zoom scale marked
something like '35 - 350', which it definitely is not, and I suspect
most users have no idea what effect the lengths have on a 35mm camera;
however, I suspect it is far to late to change people to thinking in
terms of angle. When there was essentially only one reference point
(35mm ff) and the people using anything different understood the tool
they were using it did not matter, now that there are many different
size sensors in the hands of casual users there is potential for
confusion. Then again, since most have fixed lens do we need a zoom
scale with anything more than "wide - normal - tele" * on it?

* The perfectionist in me says it should be "wide - normal - narrow"
or "short - normal - long", but "wide - normal - tele" is common for
cini and video cameras.

--
Ian G8ILZ
There are always two people in every pictu the photographer and the viewer.
~Ansel Adams

Prometheus wrote:
[]
* The perfectionist in me says it should be "wide - normal - narrow"
or "short - normal - long", but "wide - normal - tele" is common
for cini and video cameras.

cine!

Whats the perfectionist opposite of tele (or telephoto), then? I didn't
do Greek at school (although I did Latin - please don't tell me tele is
Latin G).

David

In article , David J
Taylor writes
Prometheus wrote:
[]
* The perfectionist in me says it should be "wide - normal - narrow"
or "short - normal - long", but "wide - normal - tele" is common
for cini and video cameras.

cine!

I knew it was wrong, but could not be bothered to change it...

Whats the perfectionist opposite of tele (or telephoto), then? I didn't
do Greek at school (although I did Latin - please don't tell me tele is
Latin G).

It is nothing to do with mixing Greek and Latin, just using solely
length or angle terms in the expression.

Tele : Greek
Wide : Old English
Narrow : Middle English
Short : Old English
Long : Old English

Of course, to be pedantic not all 'telephoto' lenses are used where the
subject is "far off", cf. macro. Additionally; not all long focal length
lenses are of 'telephoto' construction.

P.S. If we really want to be fussy, it's what's, not "Whats"!

Stone
House
Glass
!
--
Ian G8ILZ
There are always two people in every pictu the photographer and the viewer.
~Ansel Adams

Prometheus wrote:
In article , David J
Taylor
writes
Prometheus wrote:
[]
* The perfectionist in me says it should be "wide - normal -
narrow" or "short - normal - long", but "wide - normal - tele"
is common for cini and video cameras.

cine!

I knew it was wrong, but could not be bothered to change it...

Whats the perfectionist opposite of tele (or telephoto), then? I
didn't do Greek at school (although I did Latin - please don't tell
me tele is Latin G).

It is nothing to do with mixing Greek and Latin, just using solely
length or angle terms in the expression.

Tele : Greek
Wide : Old English
Narrow : Middle English
Short : Old English
Long : Old English

Of course, to be pedantic not all 'telephoto' lenses are used where
the subject is "far off", cf. macro. Additionally; not all long focal
length lenses are of 'telephoto' construction.

P.S. If we really want to be fussy, it's what's, not "Whats"!

Stone
House
Glass
!

My apologies for the "whats" - I am normally fussy about things like that!
I find particularly annoying questions like: "Is more memory good for
PC's?", and so forth.

Anyway.

So what is the Greek for "near"? I presume that would be the opposite of
"tele". [Lens usage and construction aside....!]

Cheers,
David