Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 10 of 15 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 148
  1. #91
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    Quote Originally Posted by TenD View Post
    DPreview I can't find the specific pages but it's in there, Don doesn't refute this.


    True, because the in body IS is not tailored to anything, it has diminishing returns as the focal lengths increase. In lens IS is tailored to the lens it is placed in.

    Cost? Sony's non IS lenses cost more than Canons lenses with the IS built in. If you want top quality glass, you pay for it, if you have a Sony you pay a little more for it. In the end it becomes a wash, with Sony being slightly more expensive. ex. Sony 70-200 f/2.8 @ 3 lbs B&H price $1799, Canon 70-200 f/2.8 @ 3.5 lbs $1699, where are the savings?

    Your final statements are all true, although very biased toward in body IS. Although as you can see above the $$ savings aren't necessarily true. True with primes, true with lesser lenses. When you get to the pro level, not true at all.
    Of course I'm biased..... I don't claim to not be.

    I really don't want to get too much into this... but None of us here though are at the pro level. It just makes more sense economically for us as amateurs that we would see the savings with built in IS. The Sony bodies I believe are also cheaper. (We'll see when the A900 comes out).

    I'd still like to see the source at dpreview (couldn't find it in my limited googling)
    flickr

    Canon 7D - 5D | 550EX - 430EX II - (2) PW FlexTT5 | 24-105 f4L | 70-200 f2.8L IS | 100 f2.8L IS | 50 f1.8 II

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    I remember one poor soul I ran into at the local convention, who staggered up and said, "I used to have money ... then, I met Canon." Then, awkwardly, he passed out from lens-weight issues. It happens far too often, these days. I usually tell them to "take two SONYs and call me in the morning."

    Sorry, I digress.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043

    Enjoy your camera.

    Quote Originally Posted by dr4gon View Post
    Of course I'm biased..... I don't claim to not be.

    I really don't want to get too much into this... but None of us here though are at the pro level. It just makes more sense economically for us as amateurs that we would see the savings with built in IS. The Sony bodies I believe are also cheaper. (We'll see when the A900 comes out).

    I'd still like to see the source at dpreview (couldn't find it in my limited googling)
    I am glad you are happy with your Sony camera and I hope you are able to take a lot of fine photographs with it. I can't find my evidence on DPreview right now either. I will keep looking for it though, for right now you can say I am wrong. I don't have a problem with that.

    I agree having the SSS built in can be a good thing. My system doesn't have this and yet I am still perfectly happy with it. I like my system and unlike some, OK one, of you, will say it's perfectly capable of taking very fine photographs. All of us have some personal pride in the system we have invested in. We did our research and we bought what we bought. Mine started 30+ years ago. I haven't seen a reason to change.

    I feel no need whatsoever to come to this forum and tell you that your system sux(it doesn't), or you are drinking the kool-aid(you aren't), or you should have bought into my system(you shouldn't have).

    Don Schap, your most popular poster, somehow always feels the need to visit his old Canon haunt and tell everyone there that they are inferior because they fail to see the light like he did. He shows up there and stirs the pot trying(and succeeding)to rile people up by being just plain immature and annoying.

    When he was a Canonite he railed on Canon lenses and felt the need to preach Tamron to everyone there. Canon charged way too much for their lenses, and Tamron provided the big bargain. Yet he still owned enough Tamron lenses(overlapping focal lengths throughout)to purchase top Canon glass and cover a reasonable range. This is just another long, ongoing, trolling by Don. If you don't agree with him, he keeps jabbing, if you prove him wrong, he changes the subject, if you challenge him to prove his ranting, he demurs, then changes the subject.

    I have many times challenged Don to back his senseless ranting up. He says he's above that...then comes into another forum's living room and $hits on the floor. You don't see Cannonites, or Nikonians, or whoever coming here to bash your system. Don does this on a regular basis.

    This is the first time I have come here and said anything bad about Sony. I apologize for that. I shouldn't jump into the middle of a Sony forum and say bad things about the cameras you have chosen. Good luck with your system, and like I said above take some great photos with it.
    Last edited by TenD; 09-04-2008 at 07:16 PM.
    A good photograph is knowing where to stand.
    Ansel Adams

    Rule books are paper, they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
    Ernest K. Gann-Fate is the Hunter.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    @TenD ... Thanks for stopping by, pal.

    It has been a fun three years of swapping glass, buying camera systems and learning that Canon simply will not accept the tide of change. Your appreciation of their stagnation is remarkable and ... regrettable. They need to answer the call.

    SONY is dialing it up ... ring ring ... "Anyone home?" "No, this number is ... disconnected from the users ... sorry."

    Enjoy your choice ... you could have been treated BETTER by Mother Canon ... forget SONY, as they simply put everyone on notice ... "in-the-body-IS is a great idea."

    Canon could have done it ... but hey decided their profits were more important than their users. That's kool-aid drinkin', my friend. No thanks. You can have it.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043
    Enjoy your walkman Don.
    A good photograph is knowing where to stand.
    Ansel Adams

    Rule books are paper, they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
    Ernest K. Gann-Fate is the Hunter.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    Now, who is being disrespectful and dismissive, my friend?

    We are all entitled to our opinions ... and regardless of whether or not yours agrees with mine, I know I am right.

    Go get 'em, Tiger

    Name:  wounded-tiger.jpg
Views: 82
Size:  427.5 KB

    Go back to Canon and tell them to give you in-the-body-IS, too!
    Last edited by DonSchap; 09-04-2008 at 08:12 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    Now, who is being disrespectful and dismissive, my friend?

    We are all entitled to our opinions ... and regardless of whether or not yours agrees with mine, I know I am right.

    Go get 'em, Tiger

    Name:  wounded-tiger.jpg
Views: 82
Size:  427.5 KB

    Go back to Canon and tell them to give you in-the-body-IS, too!
    Me! But it's not directed at the folks(maybe one)in this forum. Is the photo your example of what I could do if Canon would only give me in body IS? If it is, then I don't want it. What's wrong? OOF or camera shake, noisy, poor saturation.

    Here, no IS, toy camera(rebel XT)300 f/4L+1.4x HANDHELD.


    I don't need in body IS, I don't need IS at all. Good photographs with any equipment are completely possible, IS or not. I'll stay with what I have and keep making photos, you keep making your photos. Show them off. Be proud. But don't come over to my house and tell me my equipment isn't capable, it is. Coming over to Canon to gloat that they didn't introduce a worthy camera is just poor form.
    A good photograph is knowing where to stand.
    Ansel Adams

    Rule books are paper, they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
    Ernest K. Gann-Fate is the Hunter.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    Given the sun ... yeah ... you have that right. Any brilliant light source eliminates the need for IS, that's for sure.
    Crank that bad boy up to 1/500th second and you could probably drop out of a building ... and get a stable looking
    image.

    I'll make sure I drag the sun with me, when I go indoors ...

    Name:  sun lit library.jpg
Views: 36
Size:  35.9 KB

    perhaps during a wedding shoot or some such and fire that puppy right up! All I have to do, then, is say the
    magic-phrase handed down to me by 'TenD' ...

    "It's okay, folks! I am shooting with a Canon DSLR ... no IS, don't ya know? Let there be light!"

    Sorry ... everything in its place, my friend. Even in-the-body-IS.

    "Excuse me, folks ... go ahead and close the curtains, again ... I have a SONY. Sorry about all that."

    Okay, perhaps a little extreme, but this argument is getting rather pointless. My suggestion is and has always been
    (regardless of how you or anyone else wants to argue it) IS should be in BOTH the longer lenses and the
    body, with the option of choosing is made by the operator. That's real choice and I know Canon and Nikon could
    do it ... if they so desired. They do not, so your option is gone ... by their default. So endeth the lesson. If SONY
    decides to put TAMRON's developed "VC" in the 300mm f/2.8, 400mm f/4.5 and 600mm f/4 ...

    I'm only parroting back the things you've already heard, though.

    Name:  parroting-back.jpg
Views: 42
Size:  254.1 KB

    LOL Oh boy! Let the games begin.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 09-04-2008 at 10:29 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    Yay I'm glad we came to a compromise.... Makes sense to have it in both places and to maximize effectiveness across the wide and longer lengths!

    IS/VR/whatever at >300mm would be great for Sonys!
    flickr

    Canon 7D - 5D | 550EX - 430EX II - (2) PW FlexTT5 | 24-105 f4L | 70-200 f2.8L IS | 100 f2.8L IS | 50 f1.8 II

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Ohio, USA.
    Posts
    1,161
    Wow guys how about we all have a beer and shoot some pics. this thread is starting to sound like lots and lots of threads at some of those other sites that I don't belong to.
    All I want to do is learn how to be a better photographer, learn new things, get the most for my money, have a few laughs, and feel like I belong. oh what the hell, world peace wouldnt be to bad either!
    Sony A700_____________Minolta AF 50mm. F/1.7
    Minolta AF 70-210mm F/3.5-4.5 Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR DiII LD Asp. [IF]
    Tamron SP AF 70-200mm. F/2.8 DI LD [IF] Macro
    Tamron AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2
    Tokina AF 28-70mm F/3.5-4.5
    Tokina AF AT-X 80-400mm F/4.5-5.6
    http://flickr.com/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •