[LRflex] Re: OT: Riff vs. IS.
- From: Bob Shaw <rsphotoimages@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:29:43 -0700
Gents:
This reminds me of the Contax AX.
A terrific concept wherein the AF was done by moving the film plane
back and forth, enabling the owner to use all Contax R lenses and enjoy
autofocus to boot. They actually sold quite a few to diehard Contax
mavens who refused to give up their Zeiss T* glass to move over to
Canon or Nikon.
And, you could make a macro out of non-macro lenses if you knew what
you were doing.
Sadly, the AX was not quite up to the reliability of the RX or RTS
series (I shot both the RX and RTSII), or I would have bought one.
Might never have migrated to Leica R, now that I think about it.
Bob
On Jul 18, 2007, at 17:30, Douglas Herr wrote:
> To me, building the image stabilization into the body (as done with
> the Pentax K10D) makes FAR more sense than building it into the
> lenses. After all, you must then buy new lenses (a plus for the
> makers) and it means that the lenses are decentered to make the
> adjustments, so definition must suffer. I hope that the R10 will go
> the "in the body" route ... and not built IS into the lenses, as with
> the D3.
I agree, I'd much rather see the in-body technology in the R10 than the
optical solution, for two reasons:
1) it works with every lens you can put on the camera, old or new
2) no decentering or extra air/glass surfaces.
Doug Herr
Birdman of Sacramento
http://www.wildlightphoto.com
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
Other related posts:
