Which stabilization is best in lens or in camera body?

[shirlock1]

I am new to DSLR and trying to decide what way to go. A friend speaks highly about the Canon is lenses. However, if you bought the in camera stabilization would it not be useful for all the lenses. How different are they?
Thanks
Jim

[TheWengler]

I am new to DSLR and trying to decide what way to go. A friend speaks highly about the Canon is lenses. However, if you bought the in camera stabilization would it not be useful for all the lenses. How different are they?

If you buy a camera with in body stabilization it will be on all lenses but not as effective on the telephoto end of things. So in lens IS is more effective but also more expensive.

[Rhys]

If you buy a camera with in body stabilization it will be on all lenses but not as effective on the telephoto end of things. So in lens IS is more effective but also more expensive.

I have seen very good results from long lenses with the Pentax K100D with its in-body IS.

I wonder whether the full-frame bodies would be as good with in-body IS. Thus I would rather imagine in-lens would be better.

I note that Nikon now has full frame as has Canon for quite a while.

[TheWengler]

I have seen very good results from long lenses with the Pentax K100D with its in-body IS.

I have no complaints about the K100D and I haven't used a Nikon or Canon so I can't really compare. I speak only from what I've heard from others. The idea of in body IS sure is nice though. I think Pentax claims 4 stops of effectiveness in their system.

[TheWengler]

I have seen very good results from long lenses with the Pentax K100D with its in-body IS.

I have no complaints about the K100D and I haven't used a Nikon or Canon so I can't really compare. I speak only from what I've heard from others. The idea of in body IS sure is nice though. I think Pentax claims 2-4 stops of effectiveness in their system.

[BBPhoto]

Some claim that in-lens IS is the better system because the IS can be designed and engineered for that specific lens. Others claim that in body IS is the better system, especially when taking into account the overall cost savings. Who knows? It all seems good to me. Any IS is better than no IS. No sense in splitting hairs. I'd probably go out shooting if my lens cap was fused to the front of my lens anyway.

Man... I can't wait till Don gets a hold of this thread. :D

[AlexMonro]

One minor advantage for in body IS is that you have it available for ALL lenses, not just the ones that the manufacturers design with it. I don't believe anyone makes any wide angle IS lenses, so if, for example, you were taking available light interior shots handheld (many public buildings frown upon the use of tripods & flash), Canon & Nikon wouldn't be much help, whereas Pentax, Sony & some Olympus cameras could give you a few very useful extra stops - even alowing for the fact you tend to get less shake with W/A than tele.

This is probably a bit of a niche application though, and for the more traditional applications of IS, such as extreme tele wildlife shots, in the lens is probably slightly more effective.

[TheObiJuan]

Don, try Coldrain!
Andy Coldie has to hold back until all of those ban points clear up.:p

[DonSchap]

As it goes with one thing, it goes with everything. <- A nebulous statement.

I can personally attest that the in-body-IS in the new SONY A700 is extremely effective. I've been doing some testing with a Tokina AT-X 840 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 to see if the images are clear at 400mm ... because it is tough to handhold a slow shutter-speed shot at that range. Hey ... it has made me a believer, it works. ;)

Now ... let's inspect the costs involved to just get a 400mm shot with IS with the current crop of camera bodies ... and reveal some truths, also.

Just for grins: :D

SONY A700 = $1399

Canon EOS 40D = $1299

Tokina AT-X 840 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 {33 oz} (SONY mount - no IS necessary) = $500

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM {49 oz} = $1200

Simple addition: Canon = $2499 - - - SONY = $ 1899

That's an extra $600 and a full pound in weight for IS-capability in only ONE lens. Swap off to any other of your other lenses and it is gone.

If you don't have in-body IS ... you are just missing the "good stuff" you could be getting with your prime and non-IS equipped lenses.

And on a practical note: Most photographers don't make enough to support an in-the-lens IS diet. Save more than just a few bucks ... and get it in the camera. If you are shooting where it really matters that much, you're just not getting paid enough for your work. :rolleyes:

On a personal note: I learned how valuable IS could be with one of the better lenses Canon made, the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM ... and then had a chance to use the SONY A100 (in-the-body-IS) with all my other non-IS equipped Minolta-glass ... the low-light and long glass "keepers" went sky-high in both circumstances. But, I only had ONE Canon IS-equipped lens ... and that really limited things. The SONY could shoot ANY mounted lens and provide IS. - With the advent of the A700 ... the "improved A100" -> goodbye Canon! -

[Rhys]

I'm pretty convinced by in-body IS as being good. I wonder whether it's possible though with full-sized sensors without needing more glass. I can also testify to in-lens IS working quite well.

Pentax went a step further though. Their K10D not only offers vertical and horizontal stabilisation but also rotational. Considering the main flaw I see in a lot of people's photos is right-hand droop when a photo is taken, this could become universal. Of course, this is something that can only be applied in-body. It cannot be applied in-lens at all.

[TheObiJuan]

real men don't need in-body IS.

LOL.
I actually wish Canon would make the 400D replacement with in-body IS.
It would be small and powerful combo.
People that would say that in-body IS on that consumer of a camera can STFU.
If you don't want it, turn it off or get a 40D/MkIII.

Only problem I see is the EFS lenses might not have enough latitude to take advantage of a sensor shaker.

[BamaPanda]

First message here.

I can't wait to get my hands on the new Oly E3. The IS in body claims up to 5 stops, and I would bet that would even benefit longer lenses. Actually on some of the longest four thirds lenses you can mount, I still think a tripod is necessary, regardless which type IS is used.

Of course the best bargain out there for price, lightness, great kit lenses and in body IS is the Oly 510 w/2 lenses.

Just my 2c.

[Forced Perfect]

It's quite simple:


In Lens
Higher cost due to having to buy many lenses with IS
More effective as the IS can be geared to the size/design of the lens
Stabilizes the viewfinder - this is a big difference, telephotos are smooth and silky with IS on!


In Camera
Cheaper!
Works well enough for most people
Does NOT stabilize the viewfinder - telephotos will bounce all over the place, even with IS on

[Franklin]

As it goes with one thing, it goes with everything. <- A nebulous statement.

I can personally attest that the in-body-IS in the new SONY A700 is extremely effective. I've been doing some testing with a Tokina AT-X 840 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 to see if the images are clear at 400mm ... because it is tough to handhold a slow shutter-speed shot at that range. Hey ... it has made me a believer, it works. ;)

Now ... let's inspect the costs involved to just get a 400mm shot with IS with the current crop of camera bodies ... and reveal some truths, also.

Just for grins: :D

SONY A700 = $1399

Canon EOS 40D = $1299

Tokina AT-X 840 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 {33 oz} (SONY mount - no IS necessary) = $500

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM {49 oz} = $1200

Simple addition: Canon = $2499 - - - SONY = $ 1899

That's an extra $600 and a full pound in weight for IS-capability in only ONE lens. Swap off to any other of your other lenses and it is gone.

If you don't have in-body IS ... you are just missing the "good stuff" you could be getting with your prime and non-IS equipped lenses.

And on a practical note: Most photographers don't make enough to support an in-the-lens IS diet. Save more than just a few bucks ... and get it in the camera. If you are shooting where it really matters that much, you're just not getting paid enough for your work. :rolleyes:

On a personal note: I learned how valuable IS could be with one of the better lenses Canon made, the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM ... and then had a chance to use the SONY A100 (in-the-body-IS) with all my other non-IS equipped Minolta-glass ... the low-light and long glass "keepers" went sky-high in both circumstances. But, I only had ONE Canon IS-equipped lens ... and that really limited things. The SONY could shoot ANY mounted lens and provide IS. - With the advent of the A700 ... the "improved A100" -> goodbye Canon! -

Don, if you compare prices, be fair mkay? ;) Comparing a focal length where Canon only has L glass is skewing the scales, especially if you then compare it with a "side" brand.

You give a nice example with a Tokina 400mm, in wich Canon only has L glass. But how about if you go down 100mm you get stabilised lenses for 542$


But how about something wich is for many people bread and butter 70-200 2.8? Thats a (barely affordable) focal length where a lot of people buy the good stuff.

Sony 2.8
1999.99$ (Amazon, checked for best price)

Canon IS 2.8
1579.00

Can you feel that in your wallet? And I won't even mention the Canon IS 4.0 wich would make the hurt in your wallet quite painful.

So Don, for Sony the price advantage is discutable :rolleyes:

And yeah, I agree, if Sony only could match the lens range for the prices Canon asks for their non-IS lenses the price advantage for IS in-body would be huge :D As it stands the price difference is'n't as big as it could be (should be?)

[BLWNHR]

I have a Pentax K10D and lenses ranging from 18mm-500mm and find the in-camera SR fine for stationary objects and slow panning (field sports). Anything fast, like motorsport the SR can't handle it. Hopefully in future models Pentax have a pan mode SR like Canon's IS (Mode 2?) and then I think it will be very good.

I did a big test on SR but haven't had the time to process the results. Basically shot at 500mm from 1/1000 down to 1/10 to test how good the SR really was. Will post the results of that at some stage.