I am not sure if you want to comparea) IS with no IS; orb) two different types of IS (in camera vs in lens)..

A) You should see no difference in the picture quality when using IS versus non IS. All IS does is to stabilise the camera against hand shake, so that you can use slower shutter speeds without getting blur..

There is some minor debate among the most obsessive 'pixel peepers' as to whether turning IS off gives better image quality. But there is no widespread acceptance of this and generally you can ignore this debate..

IS is most useful on longer lenses (telephoto) for the simple reason that the longer the focal length the more hand wobble becomes magnified. For wide angle lenses IS is far less important. But once you have used a long lens with IS, you will find it hard to go back to non IS photography..

B) I have more experience with long lenses and it is generally acknowledged that in lens IS works alot better at long focal lengths, than in camera IS. I have no personal experience of in camera IS so will leave it to others to further answer this point. I suspect however that in camera IS works just fine with normal length lenses and is a great help...

I'm not sure of your question, are you planning to ditch your Canon and go to Sony as a system? First off, you have a very fine camera which should last you a while, however in a system the lenses are usually more important as you tend to keep them much longer than the camera; the assumption is that you will be getting a newer camera some time in the future..

I have two lenses with IS and I like it, but realize that no IS is the end all in lieu of good photo shooting technique. I find newer folks don't really understand what it means to go down a stop or two; they mistakenly over rate the ability of IS and end up wondering if they have a faulty lens..

I think the Sony camera idea of in body IS is smarter than what Canon has done, however the Canon line of lenses and cameras is superior to the Sony. Realize that Canon just announced a full sensor 50 megapixel sensor, so you can be sure there is going to be a quality upgrade along all their DSLR cameras coming out in the future..

With your Canon lenses, you can upgrade to these newer and better cameras in the years to come.'Professionalism is environmental. Amateurism is anti environmental..

Professionalism merges the individual into patterns of total environment. Amateurism seeks the development of the total awareness of the individual and the critical awareness of the ground rules of society. The amateur can afford to loose'The Medium is The Massage, Marshall McLuhan p 93..

Rsn48 wrote:.

Realize that Canon just announced a full sensor 50 megapixel sensor, soyou can be sure there is going to be a quality upgrade along all theirDSLR cameras coming out in the future..

We "can be sure" - you're certain? From what I've read, Canon's 50MP sensor is a prototype 28 x 19mm CMOS chip with far greater potential in industrial and medical uses than in a consumer DSLR..

An APS-C sensor is 23.7 x 15.6mm while a 35mm "Full Frame" sensor is 36 x 24mm. Interestingly, the new EOS-1D Mark III for one DOES use a APS-H sized sensor which is 28.1 x 18.7mm with a 1.3x crop factor (users with EF-S lenses need not apply)..

Http://www.dpreview.com/...learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/sensor_sizes_01.htm.

Group Captain Mandrake: 'I was tortured by the Japanese, Jack, if you must know; not a pretty story....Strange thing is they make such bloody good cameras.' (Dr. Strangelove, 1964)..

I appreciate the comments. I thought my pictures might be "better" if I used IS of some sort. I really like the Tamron 18-250 lens for convenience. All the canon IS lenses seem big and heavy...

It kind of changes the envelope in which the rest of the system should/could/may perform well..

For example, comparing a series of lenses from different makers with the same or nearly the same focal ranges? I've had (but sold) a KM 7D and used the Minolta 75-300 lens with it. That lens is OK, not necessarily great but not completely bad either. There are several roughly comparable lenses in the Nikon line, 2 older non-VR designs and the recent VR lens. I would generally expect that pictures with the D200 or other Nikons with the recent VR lens would be "better" in that it's an optically better lens than the Nikon and Minolta (and now Sony) consumer lenses are. In head to head competition where AS/VR is needed, I'd expect the Nikon to do better. If AS/VR was not needed, it probably still would.

OTOH, if one took the Nikon consumer lens and put it in a situation where AS/VR was "needed" and compared to the KM consumer lens with AS, then maybe the KM would do better..

But a different lens selection could play out differently...

Realize we are in the horse and buggy stages of digital cameras, the beginning, not the middle or end. I was just reading a book on sailing and they talked about a new "GPS" system and for $25,000 you could purchase a receiver; now of course, you can buy one for $100.'Professionalism is environmental. Amateurism is anti environmental..

Professionalism merges the individual into patterns of total environment. Amateurism seeks the development of the total awareness of the individual and the critical awareness of the ground rules of society. The amateur can afford to loose'The Medium is The Massage, Marshall McLuhan p 93..

Too bad you have the Canon plus Tamron 18-250! On the Sony dslr forum that's the lens to die for at the moment....

Frankly having tried the Sony A100 I'd never go to Canon or Nikon - unless they introduced antishake sensors. Rather than be limited to the few lenses that have stabilisation in their range (some of which are expensive but optically not all that they could be, eg 17-85), every lens I attach to my Sony, from wide angle to tele, prime or zoom, is stabilised. That certainly mitigates against the slightly higher noise levels of the SOny compared to Canon (OK, plug: for under $30 you could pick up Neat Image or equivalent and eliminate the extra noise, compared to the cost of owning a Canon that has a better sensor). Obviously for fast moving indoor lowlight work you'd be better off with Canon..

I don't usually carry a tripod around with me, but never know when I might need a long exposure. For example here I wanted to blur the flowing water, meaning I had to stop down to F22 resulting in a 1 second exposure. Handheld..

On a non-stabilised system that would be impossible..

Using a Sigma 17-70, average quality lens on my SOny this is what I got:.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

I repeat, that's ONE SECOND HANDHELD..

I think that's pretty good (not the best shot, but motion blur is minimal enough to see the veins in the leaves!).

Where stabilised lens beat sensors is that when you look through the viewfinder of a long unstabilised lens zoom, everything's wobbling about if handheld so it's hard to get the shot or autofocus - though on a Sony there won't be any motion blur as the sensor is stabilised. If you had a stabilised lens what you see through the viewfinder is what you see on the sensor - ie stabilised so less blur. Perhaps that's why some advocate going the lens route not the sensor route, as you immediatedly see the benefit of stabilisation trather than only seeing it after youj've taken the shot..

But really, as you never know when you won't have a tripod and when with any lens you might need to shoot exceeding the 1/focal length exposure time rule, I'd say get the camera with the stabilised sensor..

Shame Canon don't do that. Sony do, and as I said, those who have a Sony plus Tamron 18-250 rave. But there are other good options too, including the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 and the stunning Zeiss 16-80 if you have the $$$. Perhaps though you might prefer the Pentax K10D - heavier than the SOny, weatherproof (thought stupidly not the lenses). More buttons, more professional feel, perhaps better built and feels closer to your Canon than the SOny. Samsung GX10 I think is the model number, is identical in all but price.

So Canon and Nikon have no excuse..

Further advantage to stabilised sensors: The Sony, Pentax/Samsung K10D and Olympus 510 all have dust reducing features too - as the sensor is mounted and moveable, the camera will rapidly shake it on switching on or on demand to shake off dust. (Earlier stabilised Pentax sensors don't, the 6MP camera). All three cameras are 10MP. Dust bysting isn't perfect but sure it's better than nothing (ie Canon/Nikon). Those of use using the feature can confirm it does work reasonably well..

Finally: don't waste money buying a stabilised lens for a camera with a stabilised sensor (not even sure the combination exists) - the two would cancel each other out..

Regards...

Rsn48 wrote:.

'Professionalism is environmental. Amateurism is anti environmental.Professionalism merges the individual into patterns of totalenvironment. Amateurism seeks the development of the totalawareness of the individual and the critical awareness of theground rules of society. The amateur can afford to loose'The Medium is The Massage, Marshall McLuhan p 93.

You do realise that the quote you display above is a classic example of pretentious, affected and largely meaningless socio-babble. I am amazed that anyone would think it is wonderful enough to repeat as a "signature"..

I mean WTF does this cr@p mean: " Professionalism merges the individual into patterns of total environment" ????..

Well I debated long and hard whether to answer your response for a couple of reasons but because I saw some hope in it for you, I thought I'd respond. You won't like my response but you know, what I have to say will enter your brain and if you are a "thinker" at all, you'll mull over it in the years to come even though now you'll think I'm an a.. wh..e..

First off learn from your post, you respond with anger when you don't understand something. This isn't an unusual way to respond to the unknown but it can be improved upon. When I first moved to Elmhurst (Chicago) Illinois to attend College I used to go for long walks. I encountered a house that didn't 'fit' in to it's surroundings; at first I thought what a dumb house and I moved on. But for some reason I would think about that house in walks not even near it; I eventually found myself walking in the direction of the house with it as my final destination..

I discovered when I looked at the house, I would find new angles to it I hadn't noticed, details I had over looked; but over time that "dumb" house became my favourite. I didn't know it at the time, but I was looking at a Frank Lloyd Wright (June 8, 1867 April 9, 1959) house; if you'd given me his name at the time I wouldn't have known who he was; this was 1966..

I learned two things about myself from that house. First, because I thought something was "dumb" didn't make it so; what it really meant was that I didn't understand. I learned because I didn't understand something didn't necessarily make it "dumb." "Dumb" was more a reflection of my character, not the character of the architect - good old Frank..

Secondly I learned by putting too heavy a negative emotional obstacle in the evaluation of something, I was partially blocked or "slowed" down from learning. Instead I could chose not to negatively evaluate something, and negatively evaluate it with anger. I could chose my responses. Instead for example, I could chose to be inquisitive instead of angry. The last line in your post suggests even though you are angry you do have some inquisitiveness; the inquisitiveness is healthy, the anger isn't..

Recall the famous scene in the original Frankenstein movie where the angry crowd is chasing after the doctor and the "monster." Don't you think inquisitiveness into the wonderment of newly created life would have been more appropriate - assuming the movie had been "real" life. Or the early science fiction movies when the "creature" showed up, the first response was to kill it. Fortunately in SF movies, we moved on to "inquisitiveness.".

Now to Marshall McLuhan, he was famous for his thesis that the "medium is the message." How the message is delivered changes who we are and can define who we are. For example, reading is very linear in nature; as your read this post (which you think is dumb) you are being very linear in your intake of the message, your response can be linear in reply. Television is not linear and changed how we took in information and how we responded. For example, television affected how we ingest information, TV fed us info in short clips and eventually we preferred our information in short clips - hence People magazine phenomena. Newspapers have been dumbed down to provide not long articles, but shorter "bits." The digital age has changed us..

Now to the quote. The environment for McLuhan is everything out there, the educational vein, the economic vein, the social and anthropological vein, everything. So when one is a profession, one is caught up more into all these facets of our society. McLuhan is implying this situation for a professional is not liberating but a tad "oppressive" when it comes to creativity; you just need to think of the wedding photographer to enter the spirit of McLuhan's thinking. The wedding photographer is influenced by his creditors, the couple and their families and friends, by equipment requirements, by technical and artistic requirements, by the transportation to and from the event, the timing of the event (does he really want to be there on a Saturday evening?), everything. The professional has more ties holding him/her down..

The amateur has less constraints, less tied into the environment. When the amateur takes pics of flowers, his creditors generally are not as influential in the creative process (assuming a job that brings home the bacon). In fact when I read that quote, I thought of a possible book called - "Amateurs, the new Professionals.".

_______________________________________________.

In theory, Practice and Theory are the same. In practice, they are not...

This is what someone said on the canon board about this question:.

I recently converted from Sony A100 (having been a longtime Minolta user from my film days) to Canon 400D/XTi (starting from the ground up). In-body IS was a nice and sometimes useful feature on the KM/Sony. But I missed a bunch of shots using the Sony because it didn't focus fast enough for most of my needs (sports, events, theatre)..

Note that the Tamron 18-250 for Canon has a focusing motor built in. The same lens for KM/Sony does not. That's going to make a difference in your AF speed. I haven't used any Tamrons on my 400D/XTi, so it's hard to make a reasonable comparison but I can tell you that my experience with Tamron ultrazooms on KM/Sony film was pretty good but on KM/Sony digital was pretty dismal..

Curious as to opinions?..

Interesting that it takes you many long paragraphs of rambling analogies as a run up to explain the McLuhan quote, and finally, when you get to the point of actually explaining it, your post ends abruptly..

The phrase "amateurism is anti-environmental" implies to any normal reader that this is a bad thing. Almost everybody would agree that being "anti-environmental" is condemnatory..

However, acccording to your interpetation, which I am happy to accept is correct, in fact McLuhan is saying the opposite, and is praising amateurism and condemning professionalism. So there right off you have the basis for my condemnation of this muddy, imprecise use of the English language. The very point he most wants to make is lost in the imprecision and waffle of his language..

As far as I can underatand from your explanation, what McLuhan meant is: -.

A professional, by his reliance on making money and being efficient, is less in tune with the environment than an amateur, who can be more relaxed and, without those pressures, can more fully savour life..

This is not a complex or particularly original thought. Perhaps that is why he felt the need to obscure it in imprecise and woolly language like "Professionalism merges the individual into patterns of total environment". Being intelligible is to be found out, eh?.

Or maybe he just doesn't know how to write clear understandable English..

There are many things which I do not understand which are due to my lack of knowledge, and which I respect, - including many of the more technical photographic discussions on this forum. The fact that a writer cannot put across a simple concept like the above in clear direct English, is worthy of contempt..

It is symbolic of your tolerance for mumbo-jumbo that you have not noticed the misspelling in the last sentence which renders it entirely meaningless..

Even if you do know the difference between "loose' and "lose" and failed to correct it, it shows the sloppiness of your approach to language and to this quotation..

We shall agree to disagree. In parting I would recommend you read George Orwell on how to write clear English. It should be like a bite of grapefruit for you, after a surfeit of marshmallows..

Now I must get back to photography. Enjoy your life..

'Professionalism is environmental. Amateurism is anti environmental.Professionalism merges the individual into patterns of totalenvironment. Amateurism seeks the development of the totalawareness of the individual and the critical awareness of theground rules of society. The amateur can afford to loose'The Medium is The Massage, Marshall McLuhan p 93..

Ajax and rsn48,.

Your discussion in this thread is priceless and I have VERY much enjoyed what you've both contributed thus far. You guys ought to get together and do a syndicated newspaper he said/he said column (or movie reviews or something)..

Ultimately, I've got to give the upper hand here to ajax who's logic is as sharp as his wit..

Awesome thread. THANK YOU BOTH and by all means continue if you desire!.

Group Captain Mandrake: 'I was tortured by the Japanese, Jack, if you must know; not a pretty story....Strange thing is they make such bloody good cameras.' (Dr. Strangelove, 1964)..

Well Ajax, it looks like our combined existence is enhancing Max - kindest regards Maxwell..

First language is evolutionary, sometimes revolutionary. The word environment has a different flavour, connotation, whatever than it did back when our buddy Marshall was writing and lecturing. Lets say that the word environmental for Marshall was along the concept of Weltanschauung to the Germans. [The word is pounced with a "v" not a "w"and you'll need to look it up, you're average spell check won't have it, but it's in my Oxford which I had to check for the correct spelling]. Today environment has a more specific meaning and more politically loaded than it did in our buddies time. The word "environment" has morphed - revolutionary change - in the past 30 years..

The problem for the philosopher, and in many ways Marshall was more a philosopher than a communications guy, is that you have to use "established" language to describe something new. If you really want a challenge try reading some Emmanuel Kant (philosopher -try Wikipedia), he was trying to establish a new "truth." First he had to critique [ found in the book "Critique of Pure Reason" I believe it is called] what "truth" was perceived, then he defined a new "truth" - how do you know when something is true. This may sound trite, but all modern thinking and contemporary philosophy is "post-Kantian.".

In the old days, a guy could sit in a comfortable chair and define what was true, Kant proved this was to full of subjectivism, so he defined the new truth - which to save much typing on my part can best be defined as "scientific objectivity as a means to prove and re-prove a hypothesis in a scientific community." In other words for something to be true didn't have to be highly reasoned, instead it had to provable using scientific understandings of proof. Our legal systems is the 'objective outward observable proof'. But if you read Kant, Lord help you, may God have mercy on your soul; it isn't so obvious. Why? Because he was the first guy saying it and he didn't know how to say it..

I checked my original source, I just did a copy and paste and the typing or spelling error you refer to is in the original quote, found on the internet typed in by some one, not Marshall McLuhan. The error was in the editor not the thinker..

To understand some thinkers, you have to step outside your "bailiwick" sometimes, put aside what you think and pay more attention to what they are thinking in their unique language, even though that language is English. I met some guy in Chicago when I visited it last; he bragged he had never left Chicago his entire life and he never intended to; he said this in a manner to impress me. From my perspective I was horrified, how could he live such a narrow life and be proud of it. Sometimes you need to get out of your own backyard to see the rest of the city. Or as I once told a young Native Canadian - "If you want to soar with the eagles in the afternoon, you have to leave the nest in the morning." The same with critical thinking._______________________________________________.

In theory, Practice and Theory are the same. In practice, they are not...

Rsn48 wrote:.

I checked my original source, I just did a copy and paste and thetyping or spelling error you refer to is in the original quote,found on the internet typed in by some one, not Marshall McLuhan.The error was in the editor not the thinker..

Not quite. The error was most in YOU, who chose this meaningless quotation and did not even read it carefully enough to notice a typo error which renders it even more meaningless (if there can be degrees of meaninglessness!)..

It's all very well to throw words like Weltanschauung around, but maybe you should stick with the easier ones first like "lose" and "loose"..

In theory, Practice and Theory are the same. In practice, they arenot..

Wow! You must have some internet source which specialises in pretentious sayings. What's it called "Bullshi!t Baffles Brains"..?.

This one too is meaningless. In theory, practice and theory are NOT the same. They mean completely different things. But I gather in our short acquaintance that meaning of words is not your strong point..

Oh well......

Right, and I'm sure this senseless meandering and arguing really addresses the OPs question. Ya gotta just love the dpreview forums.....

Maxwell Smart wrote:.

Ajax and rsn48,.

Your discussion in this thread is priceless and I have VERY muchenjoyed what you've both contributed thus far. You guys ought toget together and do a syndicated newspaper he said/he said column(or movie reviews or something)..

Ultimately, I've got to give the upper hand here to ajax who'slogic is as sharp as his wit..

Awesome thread. THANK YOU BOTH and by all means continue if youdesire!Group Captain Mandrake: 'I was tortured by the Japanese, Jack, ifyou must know; not a pretty story....Strange thing is they makesuch bloody good cameras.' (Dr. Strangelove, 1964).

Best regards,Doughttp://pbase.com/dougj.

Http://thescambaiter.comFighting scammers WW for fun & justice..

Is throw the old shutterspeed=focal length rule which serves to avoid motion blur out of the window. You can shoot upto 4 stops slower that you can without..

So, once again this is a case of more expensive gear adding more versatility instead of automagically making better pics.Don't wait for the Nikon D-whatever, have fun now!http://www.flickr.com/photos/j_wijnands/..

Rcyphermd wrote:.

I appreciate the comments. I thought my pictures might be "better"if I used IS of some sort. I really like the Tamron 18-250 lens forconvenience. All the canon IS lenses seem big and heavy..

Well it seems your question has become lost amongst the completely off topic banter..

It seems you do not understand completley what IS if for. (assuming by your wording 'might be better'.) It is to increase your ability to take handheld photos. The general rule for full frame sensors or 35 mm film is that you must use a shutter speed faster than the recirocal of your focal length to prevent blur in a handheld photo. So on your 18-250 lens at 18 mm, a shutter speed slower than 1/18 (we'll say 1/15) will cause a blurry photo. At 250 mm, a speed slower than 1/250 will cause a blurry photo. With IS (in lens or in body) which should give 3 stops difference you will be able to take a 1/2 second exposure at 18 mm and 1/30 exposure at 250.

For any photo where a fast enough shutter speed is used to prevent handheld blur, the use of IS will do nothing to make your photo appear better..

Both 'in lens' and 'in body' will give you 2 stops difference for sure. 'In lens' should give you 3 stops difference for long focal lengths. There is some debate whether you will get 3 stops from 'in body' for very long focal lengths but at more moderate focal length 3 stops should not be a problem...

Doug J wrote:.

Right, and I'm sure this senseless meandering and arguing reallyaddresses the OPs question. Ya gotta just love the dpreviewforums.....

Doug of course you are right, - and I apologise to you & Maxwell if I irritated you by going off on a tangent..

But to be fair I was the first one in this thread to try and answer the OP, and subsequent to that he got further advice from alot more competent people as well..

So he is well answered, and we can now drag this thread into the irrelevant territory of language and writing.....

But having made my point I shall now retreat back into dignified silence (unless of course I am provoked beyond restraint by my debating buddy rsn48).

I end with a quotation written some 350 years ago, which I feel certain neither rsn48 nor his hero Marshall "Muddywords" McLuhan ever read: -.

" There arises from a bad and inept formation of words a wonderful obstruction to the mind" (Francis Bacon Book I, aphorism 43).

Maxwell Smart wrote:.

Ajax and rsn48,.

Your discussion in this thread is priceless and I have VERY muchenjoyed what you've both contributed thus far. You guys ought toget together and do a syndicated newspaper he said/he said column(or movie reviews or something)..

Ultimately, I've got to give the upper hand here to ajax who'slogic is as sharp as his wit..

Awesome thread. THANK YOU BOTH and by all means continue if youdesire!Group Captain Mandrake: 'I was tortured by the Japanese, Jack, ifyou must know; not a pretty story....Strange thing is they makesuch bloody good cameras.' (Dr. Strangelove, 1964).

Best regards,Doughttp://pbase.com/dougj.

Http://thescambaiter.comFighting scammers WW for fun & justice..

Ajax wrote:.

I apologise to you & Maxwell if I irritated you by going off on a tangent..

Eh? No irratation here! Seriously, ajax - your wit is razor sharp!.

Regards to you in South Africa...

Maxwell Smart wrote:.

Ajax wrote:.

I apologise to you & Maxwell if I irritated you by going off on a tangent..

Eh? No irratation here! Seriously, ajax - your wit is razor sharpRegards to you in South Africa..

I've never been to Atlanta, but based on your courtesy and generosity of spirit I look forward to doing so one day..

If you ever get to the Southern tip of Africa I'm buying lunch.....

And if rsn48 joins us I'll even pay for him!..

Getting back to my question, thanks for the replies. Will a picture indoors, under lower light, at 50mm on the zoom, be clearer with the sony with IS than my canon without IS?..

Rcyphermd wrote:.

Getting back to my question, thanks for the replies. Will a pictureindoors, under lower light, at 50mm on the zoom, be clearer withthe sony with IS than my canon without IS?.

Just because you are the Original Poster does not mean you have the right to interrupt this fascinating thread with a photographic question!.....

Oh alright..

The short answer to your question I believe is YES. The main threat to sharp photos when shooting in low light conditions is hand wobble, which imparts blur to the photos..

That is precisely the situation that IS is made for, - low light conditions where you need to use a slower shutter speed. IS enables you to use slower shutter speeds than you would without IS, usually at least twice as slow. Which at normal shutter speed stops means letting in 4 times as much light..

So it has the effect of opening the lens by two stops..

And if you ask "Why don't I just open the lens by two stops then?" the asnwer is that this discussion normally only happens when the lens is already fully open, at it's maximum aperture..

In addition to controlling shutter speed and lens aperture, there is a third factor, which is to increase the sensiticvity of the sensor by increasing the ISO. I am not familiar with your Sony so I do not know if it has the capability of adjusting ISO. If it does, then I would say use the Sony with IS rather than the Canon without..

Hope this helps and good luck...

Thanks, that was very helpful! I had a chance for an exceptional photo under dim meeting room light that was blurry. I sure wish I had had the IS camera then...

I think it is hard to tell.I have a Pentax K100D and think it does a pretty good job with camera shake as do my Canon DSLR's with the couple IS lenses I have. Pretty well a toss up from my experience. The body IS is a lot more versatile, though, and the Pentax K100D and K10D offer you an awful lot more than the Sony A100 does, at least at present. More lenses and much lower high ISO noise along with a totally pro level weather sealed body in the K10D or an extreme value in the K100D.Dave Lewis..

It comes down to this; the potentially improved effectiveness of in-lens optical image stabilization offset by increased lens centering defects and lowered lens reliability (Canon/Nikon IS lenses) - VS - potentially less effective in-camera image stabilization combined with generally less expensive and more reliable lenses (Pentax/Sony/Olympus cameras)..

Not all IS systems are created equal and may not perform the same at all focal lengths. It's not possible then to say that in-lens optical image stabilization ALWAYS out-performs any in-camera image stabilization system..

Eventually, someone will get together a bunch of cameras and 300mm lenses on a home-made camera shaker and then we'll see how effective what percentage of the time each system/lens is. Woe be it to Canon or Nikon though if the test is conducted with a duff lens..

Group Captain Mandrake: 'I was tortured by the Japanese, Jack, if you must know; not a pretty story....Strange thing is they make such bloody good cameras.' (Dr. Strangelove, 1964)..