I have to call BS on this one, since it's always touted by Canon and Nikon to justify their stabilization choice. While in-lens IS might be superior for longer focal lengths, it's always preferable to use a tripod on longer focal lengths, which negates the need for stabilization of any sort. You don't need it for studio work either for the same reason, but most people are going to need stabilization when they are walking around, probably using focal lengths maybe from 18-200 and possibily up to 300. In-body IS makes a strong showing there, as I think the in-lens advantage only starts in the mid-200s (can't remember). My walk around lenses are 28-75, 28-105, and 70-210.
Further, having stabilization on a fast prime makes for the ultimate low ambient light system. Remember that EVERY LENS that fits your camera becomes stabilized. Just taking cost into account, there's no comparison. To have every focal length and every lens IS or VR would cost a fortune, even assuming that they made every lens with IS or VR, which they don't!
It's also been suggested that in-lens stabilization makes the lenses less reliable in the long run plus also locks you into the state of the art when you bought the lens -- if you change bodies every few years but always keep the same glass, you are constantly renewing the stabilization system for in-body IS but keeping the same one with in-lens. Moving parts=less reliability. So, if you change the body, you can continually get the latest stabilization technology, but you'd have to change the lens to do the same with Canon or Nikon.
Pentax's lastest camera uses the exact same battery as the Maxxum 5D/7D and the A1/A2 prosumer cameras from KM. There is a well established OEM market for this battery (NP-400), and it makes people like me, a 7D owner, happy to know that the batteries will be available for several more years!
I've always wondered about the AA thing. While it's nice to have the option in a pinch, I always keep two batteries fully charged and have never run out of juice. I'd be more likely to pop the AAs into the flash unit than the camera.
THE standard, Adobe RAW (along with Photoshop), supports every camera with regular upgrades. I've not noticed any bias to Canikon when using Photoshop CS2 as it doesn't really care where your JPEG or RAW file came from. I believe Adobe is part of the Open RAW initiative, pushing an open RAW format, partially as a result of Canon and Nikon (among others, but they are the biggest, as you say) attempting to maintain tight control over their formats with proprietary file types. Hopefully the future will not have any other formats besides JPEG (or its successor, whatever that might be) and RAW.
Facebook
Twitter