Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    4

    Which stabilization is best in lens or in camera body?

    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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brisbane, CA
    Posts
    3,591
    Quote Originally Posted by shirlock1 View Post
    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.
    Lukas

    Camera: Anonymous
    I could tell you but I wouldn't want you to get all pissy if it's the wrong brand

    Flickr

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Formerly South Wales. Now South Carolina.
    Posts
    7,147
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWengler View Post
    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brisbane, CA
    Posts
    3,591
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhys View Post
    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.
    Lukas

    Camera: Anonymous
    I could tell you but I wouldn't want you to get all pissy if it's the wrong brand

    Flickr

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brisbane, CA
    Posts
    3,591
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhys View Post
    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.
    Lukas

    Camera: Anonymous
    I could tell you but I wouldn't want you to get all pissy if it's the wrong brand

    Flickr

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Great White North
    Posts
    1,313
    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.
    The respect of those you respect is greater than the applause of the multitude.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Exeter, UK
    Posts
    883
    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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    2,364
    Don, try Coldrain!
    Andy Coldie has to hold back until all of those ban points clear up.
    US Navy--Hooyah!

    Nikon D700/D300|17-35 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, Sigmalux, 80-200 f/2.8, 16 f/2.8 fisheye,

    Lots of flashes and Honl gear.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Cool You can get a whole lot more glass ...

    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:

    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.

    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! -
    Last edited by DonSchap; 10-19-2007 at 09:24 AM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Formerly South Wales. Now South Carolina.
    Posts
    7,147
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •