Hey Dirk,

it's not as easy as you make out. If I would search and submit today I might have changed my mind comes Sunday (or Tuesday or Wednesday or ...).
Guess I have to roll the dice when to submit.

Hope you know what you are letting yourself in for. Asking to break the submission record I fear for your mental health

Well, you are asking for it...

Good luck,
Prieni

Edit: Hey Martin, that might fend the masses off and save Dirk. Great first entry!

I almost switched off my computer as I intended to finish for today. However, I was too curious of your detailed appraisals, Dirk. So I read through it.

Respect for a stirling judging job! Thank you, it's much appreciated.

And thanks to all the entrants, some really stunning pictures (as you would expect with such a theme ). Many "winners" this time again, well done everybody. Congratulations Gwyn, one of the many great shots here!

Looking forward to the next competition...

Ok, let's get one in (I may change it later on...)

*istD, Sigma 105 mm F2.8 EX DG Macro, 1/8 s, A11, ISO 200.

By how much? No error margin? To the Angstrom?

I doubt it. And a few pixel rows/columns might be enough (thus my questions for the travel of the shake reduction). One perhaps would be willing to sacrifice a few pixels for the benefit of anti-shake.
Or, how's about 95% full frame?

Yes, the size would go up, but the sensor size would add about 12.5 mm in width and 8.3 mm in height. If you add that to the K10D it's not really C**on size, is it.

I also could imagine a construction that might add depth to the camera body but not width/height.

But I don't want to get hung up on size/weight at the moment, the original question was why a full frame sensor cannot go with in body anti-shake.
OTOH size/weight might be just the point that the advocates of this argument are making. For me, though, it always sounded as if the laws of physics would stand against it... (i.e. the argument runs "it's impossible" and not "it doesn't make sense"; the latter I could be convinced of)

Prieni

I'm not buying the mass argument. One example: the mass of the lens element that is shifted in the in-lens anti-shake systems certainly is higher than the mass of a full frame sensor.
There are actuators around that can move quite a bit of mass at speed over very short distances.

Prieni

I've read that many a times but I wonder if that really is true. Why does anti-shake inhibit a full-frame sensor?
Is the image circle exactly 43.267 mm (i.e. diagonal for 24x36)? What is the tolerance? How long is the maximum travel of the anti-shake?

Not that I am really keen on a full frame. I know image quality of the APS-C is good enough for me (and that is already true for low ISO shots with my "ancient" istD). It's just that I don't see the argument...

Prieni

Is that the famous butterfly-effect? Dan in Britain types some words in his keyboard and a few days later some Argentinian kids play "paper, scissors, stone".

This should teach the competition winners to be very careful indeed in selecting challenge topics!
Apparently Dan chose wisely (even if I don't know yet if I can produce an entry in time...)

Prieni

Nice judging Dan and I think you picked the right winner (and I would have chosen the same second place BTW).

Dirk, a brilliant idea very well executed!

Nothing wrong with a proper sausage

[Off he goes to the fridge...]

stone cuts paper...


*istD, Sigma 105/2.8 DG EX Macro, AF540 FGZ, AF360 FGZ, laser pointer. Composite from multiple pictures (and PS, of course).