BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tjsimonsen" data-source="post: 1279616" data-attributes="member: 38764">Hi,I have no experience with the two cameras you a looking at. So while I cannot comment om them, I would like to echo those who say that you should choose a system that gives you the best possibilities for the future, not just a camera for today.I certainly understand why in-camera IS is tempting. However, it is also worth thinking about why Nikon and Canon do not offer that in their cameras. One argument is that IS in the lens allows it to be tuned specifically to the lens. While it probably isn't the only reason, it certainly has merit (Nikon and Canon would also have problems selling their IS lenses if they started putting IS in the cameras). Another thing is that as far as I know in-camera IS does not stabilize the viewfinder. That would in my experience be a serious problem. It may be imagination, but my feeling is that the stable, non-shaking view enables me to hold the lens even more still (I probably don't try as hard as I would do with an obviously shaking viewfinder). My feeling is that it gives me another 0.5 stop to play with. Finally, you shouldn't "fear" to start with a non-stabilized lens. It is far from impossible to use it and get good results. And it will give you a better basic technique - something that will help if you get a stabilized lens later.Just my 0.2 centsThomas</blockquote>