Dpreview decries the high cost of in-lens I.S.

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:31:45 -0800 (PST), ransley
wrote:
On Nov 11, 6:59 pm, RichA wrote:
Note the conclusion "con." In-lens offers some advantages, but Canon
and Nikon use it to radically inflate the price of lenses. So much so
in some cases that you can buy another very good lens wit the
difference the in-body I.S. makes the lens cost.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/..._c16/page6.asp

Why dont they put IS in the body like Sony and Panasonic.

Probably because it's better (if more costly) in the lens. Panasonic compact
cameras with O.I.S. have it in the lens. A few lower-priced Nikon compact
cameras have VR in the body, but the higher-level models have it in the
lens. On those cameras of course there is no lens interchangeability, so
they can put the stabilization mechanism wherever it works best -- the fact
that they put it in the lens, at some increase in cost, tells you something.

On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:28:59 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Bruce" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:31:45 -0800 (PST), ransley
wrote:
On Nov 11, 6:59 pm, RichA wrote:
Note the conclusion "con." In-lens offers some advantages, but Canon
and Nikon use it to radically inflate the price of lenses. So much so
in some cases that you can buy another very good lens wit the
difference the in-body I.S. makes the lens cost.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/..._c16/page6.asp

Why dont they put IS in the body like Sony and Panasonic.

Probably because it's better (if more costly) in the lens. Panasonic compact
cameras with O.I.S. have it in the lens. A few lower-priced Nikon compact
cameras have VR in the body, but the higher-level models have it in the
lens. On those cameras of course there is no lens interchangeability, so
they can put the stabilization mechanism wherever it works best -- the fact
that they put it in the lens, at some increase in cost, tells you something.


It tells me that they opted for the more inexpensive and readily available
solution, one that imparts its own irreparable CA defects. A defect that
most snapshooters won't notice unless they start to compare their images
carefully. The random and off-axis asymmetric lateral CA that optical image
stabilization causes is nearly impossible to remove in editing.
Sensor-based IS may be less effective for larger amounts of camera-shake on
longer focal-length lenses but it's far superior in that it won't ever
introduce off-axis asymmetric lateral CA, as optical-based IS is wont to
do.

Experienced Info wrote:
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:28:59 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:31:45 -0800 (PST), ransley
wrote:
On Nov 11, 6:59 pm, RichA wrote:
Note the conclusion "con." In-lens offers some advantages, but Canon
and Nikon use it to radically inflate the price of lenses. So much so
in some cases that you can buy another very good lens wit the
difference the in-body I.S. makes the lens cost.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/..._c16/page6.asp
Why dont they put IS in the body like Sony and Panasonic.
Probably because it's better (if more costly) in the lens. Panasonic compact
cameras with O.I.S. have it in the lens. A few lower-priced Nikon compact
cameras have VR in the body, but the higher-level models have it in the
lens. On those cameras of course there is no lens interchangeability, so
they can put the stabilization mechanism wherever it works best -- the fact
that they put it in the lens, at some increase in cost, tells you something.


It tells me that they opted for the more inexpensive and readily available
solution, one that imparts its own irreparable CA defects. A defect that
most snapshooters won't notice unless they start to compare their images
carefully. The random and off-axis asymmetric lateral CA that optical image
stabilization causes is nearly impossible to remove in editing.
Sensor-based IS may be less effective for larger amounts of camera-shake on
longer focal-length lenses but it's far superior in that it won't ever
introduce off-axis asymmetric lateral CA, as optical-based IS is wont to
do.

You've completely lost your marbles...

Experienced Info wrote:
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:28:59 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:31:45 -0800 (PST), ransley
wrote:
On Nov 11, 6:59 pm, RichA wrote:
Note the conclusion "con." In-lens offers some advantages, but Canon
and Nikon use it to radically inflate the price of lenses. So much so
in some cases that you can buy another very good lens wit the
difference the in-body I.S. makes the lens cost.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/..._c16/page6.asp
Why dont they put IS in the body like Sony and Panasonic.
Probably because it's better (if more costly) in the lens. Panasonic compact
cameras with O.I.S. have it in the lens. A few lower-priced Nikon compact
cameras have VR in the body, but the higher-level models have it in the
lens. On those cameras of course there is no lens interchangeability, so
they can put the stabilization mechanism wherever it works best -- the fact
that they put it in the lens, at some increase in cost, tells you something.


It tells me that they opted for the more inexpensive and readily available
solution, one that imparts its own irreparable CA defects. A defect that
most snapshooters won't notice unless they start to compare their images
carefully. The random and off-axis asymmetric lateral CA that optical image
stabilization causes is nearly impossible to remove in editing.
Sensor-based IS may be less effective for larger amounts of camera-shake on
longer focal-length lenses but it's far superior in that it won't ever
introduce off-axis asymmetric lateral CA, as optical-based IS is wont to
do.

The resolution loss and CA addition to IS/VR lenses are both negligible.
And the CA is correctable, quite easily in PS raw import.

Can you tell us why you sit in mommy's basement writing all this crap?

On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:10:11 +1300, Me wrote:

Experienced Info wrote:
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:28:59 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:31:45 -0800 (PST), ransley
wrote:
On Nov 11, 6:59 pm, RichA wrote:
Note the conclusion "con." In-lens offers some advantages, but Canon
and Nikon use it to radically inflate the price of lenses. So much so
in some cases that you can buy another very good lens wit the
difference the in-body I.S. makes the lens cost.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/..._c16/page6.asp
Why dont they put IS in the body like Sony and Panasonic.
Probably because it's better (if more costly) in the lens. Panasonic compact
cameras with O.I.S. have it in the lens. A few lower-priced Nikon compact
cameras have VR in the body, but the higher-level models have it in the
lens. On those cameras of course there is no lens interchangeability, so
they can put the stabilization mechanism wherever it works best -- the fact
that they put it in the lens, at some increase in cost, tells you something.


It tells me that they opted for the more inexpensive and readily available
solution, one that imparts its own irreparable CA defects. A defect that
most snapshooters won't notice unless they start to compare their images
carefully. The random and off-axis asymmetric lateral CA that optical image
stabilization causes is nearly impossible to remove in editing.
Sensor-based IS may be less effective for larger amounts of camera-shake on
longer focal-length lenses but it's far superior in that it won't ever
introduce off-axis asymmetric lateral CA, as optical-based IS is wont to
do.

You've completely lost your marbles...

Then I suggest you ask the snapshooter trolls going by the names of
SavageCluck and Annika1980 to provide the links to their photos where I
explained the evidence of the randomly created off-axis asymmetric CA that
was showing up in their snapshots from their VR lenses.

On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:24:17 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

Experienced Info wrote:
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:28:59 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:31:45 -0800 (PST), ransley
wrote:
On Nov 11, 6:59 pm, RichA wrote:
Note the conclusion "con." In-lens offers some advantages, but Canon
and Nikon use it to radically inflate the price of lenses. So much so
in some cases that you can buy another very good lens wit the
difference the in-body I.S. makes the lens cost.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/..._c16/page6.asp
Why dont they put IS in the body like Sony and Panasonic.
Probably because it's better (if more costly) in the lens. Panasonic compact
cameras with O.I.S. have it in the lens. A few lower-priced Nikon compact
cameras have VR in the body, but the higher-level models have it in the
lens. On those cameras of course there is no lens interchangeability, so
they can put the stabilization mechanism wherever it works best -- the fact
that they put it in the lens, at some increase in cost, tells you something.


It tells me that they opted for the more inexpensive and readily available
solution, one that imparts its own irreparable CA defects. A defect that
most snapshooters won't notice unless they start to compare their images
carefully. The random and off-axis asymmetric lateral CA that optical image
stabilization causes is nearly impossible to remove in editing.
Sensor-based IS may be less effective for larger amounts of camera-shake on
longer focal-length lenses but it's far superior in that it won't ever
introduce off-axis asymmetric lateral CA, as optical-based IS is wont to
do.

The resolution loss and CA addition to IS/VR lenses are both negligible.
And the CA is correctable, quite easily in PS raw import.

Can you tell us why you sit in mommy's basement writing all this crap?

While you sit in your own troll's uneducated basement with your
horse's-asses blinders on, I suggest you try to remove some off-axis
asymmetric lateral CA with any editing tools available today. This is not
simple on-axis symmetric longitudinal or axial CA that all lenses produce.
The usual CA with which you might be familiar, and which all good editors
have the tools to remove something as simple as that.

And no, we're not talking about purple fringing, you blooming idiot of a
troll.

Experienced Info wrote:
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:24:17 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

Experienced Info wrote:
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:28:59 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:31:45 -0800 (PST), ransley
wrote:
On Nov 11, 6:59 pm, RichA wrote:
Note the conclusion "con." In-lens offers some advantages, but Canon
and Nikon use it to radically inflate the price of lenses. So much so
in some cases that you can buy another very good lens wit the
difference the in-body I.S. makes the lens cost.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/..._c16/page6.asp
Why dont they put IS in the body like Sony and Panasonic.
Probably because it's better (if more costly) in the lens. Panasonic compact
cameras with O.I.S. have it in the lens. A few lower-priced Nikon compact
cameras have VR in the body, but the higher-level models have it in the
lens. On those cameras of course there is no lens interchangeability, so
they can put the stabilization mechanism wherever it works best -- the fact
that they put it in the lens, at some increase in cost, tells you something.

It tells me that they opted for the more inexpensive and readily available
solution, one that imparts its own irreparable CA defects. A defect that
most snapshooters won't notice unless they start to compare their images
carefully. The random and off-axis asymmetric lateral CA that optical image
stabilization causes is nearly impossible to remove in editing.
Sensor-based IS may be less effective for larger amounts of camera-shake on
longer focal-length lenses but it's far superior in that it won't ever
introduce off-axis asymmetric lateral CA, as optical-based IS is wont to
do.
The resolution loss and CA addition to IS/VR lenses are both negligible.
And the CA is correctable, quite easily in PS raw import.

Can you tell us why you sit in mommy's basement writing all this crap?

While you sit in your own troll's uneducated basement with your
horse's-asses blinders on, I suggest you try to remove some off-axis
asymmetric lateral CA with any editing tools available today. This is not
simple on-axis symmetric longitudinal or axial CA that all lenses produce.
The usual CA with which you might be familiar, and which all good editors
have the tools to remove something as simple as that.

And no, we're not talking about purple fringing, you blooming idiot of a
troll.

Experienced Info wrote:
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:24:17 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

Experienced Info wrote:
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:28:59 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:31:45 -0800 (PST), ransley
wrote:
On Nov 11, 6:59 pm, RichA wrote:
Note the conclusion "con." In-lens offers some advantages, but Canon
and Nikon use it to radically inflate the price of lenses. So much so
in some cases that you can buy another very good lens wit the
difference the in-body I.S. makes the lens cost.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/..._c16/page6.asp
Why dont they put IS in the body like Sony and Panasonic.
Probably because it's better (if more costly) in the lens. Panasonic compact
cameras with O.I.S. have it in the lens. A few lower-priced Nikon compact
cameras have VR in the body, but the higher-level models have it in the
lens. On those cameras of course there is no lens interchangeability, so
they can put the stabilization mechanism wherever it works best -- the fact
that they put it in the lens, at some increase in cost, tells you something.

It tells me that they opted for the more inexpensive and readily available
solution, one that imparts its own irreparable CA defects. A defect that
most snapshooters won't notice unless they start to compare their images
carefully. The random and off-axis asymmetric lateral CA that optical image
stabilization causes is nearly impossible to remove in editing.
Sensor-based IS may be less effective for larger amounts of camera-shake on
longer focal-length lenses but it's far superior in that it won't ever
introduce off-axis asymmetric lateral CA, as optical-based IS is wont to
do.
The resolution loss and CA addition to IS/VR lenses are both negligible.
And the CA is correctable, quite easily in PS raw import.

Can you tell us why you sit in mommy's basement writing all this crap?

While you sit in your own troll's uneducated basement with your
horse's-asses blinders on, I suggest you try to remove some off-axis
asymmetric lateral CA with any editing tools available today. This is not
simple on-axis symmetric longitudinal or axial CA that all lenses produce.
The usual CA with which you might be familiar, and which all good editors
have the tools to remove something as simple as that.

And no, we're not talking about purple fringing, you blooming idiot of a
troll.

It would be lateral CA (you numb nutted mommy's basement dwelling troll)
which is easily corrected (even if IS/VR is on). I'll let you figure
out why that is so. This does require a modicum of logic, but you may
come through on a long shot.

"Experienced Info" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:28:59 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Bruce" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:31:45 -0800 (PST), ransley
wrote:
On Nov 11, 6:59 pm, RichA wrote:
Note the conclusion "con." In-lens offers some advantages, but Canon
and Nikon use it to radically inflate the price of lenses. So much so
in some cases that you can buy another very good lens wit the
difference the in-body I.S. makes the lens cost.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/..._c16/page6.asp

Why dont they put IS in the body like Sony and Panasonic.

Probably because it's better (if more costly) in the lens. Panasonic
compact
cameras with O.I.S. have it in the lens. A few lower-priced Nikon compact
cameras have VR in the body, but the higher-level models have it in the
lens. On those cameras of course there is no lens interchangeability, so
they can put the stabilization mechanism wherever it works best -- the
fact
that they put it in the lens, at some increase in cost, tells you
something.


It tells me that they

It tells you nothing. You are a dingleberry, incapable of understanding
anything.

On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:28:47 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Experienced Info" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:28:59 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:31:45 -0800 (PST), ransley
wrote:
On Nov 11, 6:59 pm, RichA wrote:
Note the conclusion "con." In-lens offers some advantages, but Canon
and Nikon use it to radically inflate the price of lenses. So much so
in some cases that you can buy another very good lens wit the
difference the in-body I.S. makes the lens cost.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/..._c16/page6.asp

Why dont they put IS in the body like Sony and Panasonic.

Probably because it's better (if more costly) in the lens. Panasonic
compact
cameras with O.I.S. have it in the lens. A few lower-priced Nikon compact
cameras have VR in the body, but the higher-level models have it in the
lens. On those cameras of course there is no lens interchangeability, so
they can put the stabilization mechanism wherever it works best -- the
fact
that they put it in the lens, at some increase in cost, tells you
something.


It tells me that they

It tells you nothing. You are a dingleberry, incapable of understanding
anything.



Thanks for proving to all the world that you are nothing but an
inexperienced pretend-photographer troll.