Optical Image Stabilizer VS In Body Image Stabilizer

[sgreenman]

I was reading through my November/December 2007 Calumet Focus catalog and came across this statment on page 10 from Adam Jones.

"I also have the advantage of seeing the effect through the viewfinder, while I'm composing the shot, because Canon's Image Stabilizer technology is built into the lens and not the camera body."

What is he saying? I switched to canon from nikon 4 months or so ago. Went from nikon D2xs (two of them) to the Canon 1D mark 3 and 40D. In saying that I feel lost by this quote. I know sony has in body. How is it better or worse? what does he meen about seeing the effect. Maybe I have just owned ro level equipment to long...but I don't belive I can see the IS working when I look through the viewfinder. Can someone please fill me in? Thanks

[Goofup]

I have a FZ50 with the IS built inot the body. Even though it doesn't have interchangeable lenses (I also have a Canon Rebel DSLR) I think the in-body is better simply because the lenses are cheaper (you don't have to pay for the IS part in each lens) and you also have IS with any lens you put on.

To answer your question about whether you can see it work or not, yes you can. Mine has 2 modes- one is where the IS only starts working when you start to press the button. I don't even notice it cause it's focusing, etc. at the same time. The other one is "full time"- the IS is working all the time the camera is on. You can easly see it work when panning slowly across a scene. The view rapidly "jumps" from spot to spot as it "locks on" on a view.

Personally, IS is the neatest thing since miniskirts and I'll never own another camera without it. No more motion-blur shots and I don't even take a tripod with me unless I know I'm going to need one. Besides, you can always turn it off with the press of a button.

[Mr. Pickles]

I believe that the "in body" stabilization, on the newer DSLRs (not other digital bodies) doesn't really kick-in or happen until you press the shutter down. Then the shutter gets triggered to open, the stabilization is shown and the shutter is closed. So it happens in a very short time span.

It is tracking an happening, you just can't see it because it is happening on a surface not exposed to the viewfinder path. It is happening on the sensor itself which is behind the shutter curtain.

As for whether one is better, it is a trade-off for sure. With in-body stabilization, each lens is cheaper, but the amount or effectiveness of each lenses stabilized shot may be less because the stabilization isn't as optimized for each lens. In-lens stabilization is optimized and should perform better, but yes, there is a cost difference.

Some claim the in-body stabilization gets you a stop or two advantage, while in-lens stabilization gets you up to 4 or 5 stops. Big difference. However, the in-body stabilization is a new design/idea and is getting better with every new iteration. Might not ever get to the same level as in-lens, but might get closer...?

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by sgreenman

What is he saying? I switched to canon from nikon 4 months or so ago. Went from nikon D2xs (two of them) to the Canon 1D mark 3 and 40D. In saying that I feel lost by this quote. I know sony has in body. How is it better or worse? what does he meen about seeing the effect.

Lens IS/VR systems move elements within the lens to "hold" the image still. In reality, they counteract the slight variations in motion from your inability to hold the lens perfectly still.

Body IS systems move the sensor. In a dSLR, this can't be seen through the viewfinder since the viewfinder's image is a reflection through the mirror which blocks the sensor. The IS system appears to lock at shutter release but you can't see it.

Canon and Nikon (as well as others) have used lens IS systems for years (Nikon's is VR). I believe Olympus had one of the first body IS systems but someone can confirm that. Regardless, each feels THEIR system is better for whatever reasons. From what little I've studied it, it seems that lens IS systems are tuned to focal/lens length more appropriately than body systems but software could be adjusted to account for that, too.

[cyclohexane]

In body:
+each lens you attach gains IS (everything from your fisheyes to your 600mm)
- not as effective on each lens (i.e. supertelephotos)
- can't see the effect of IS in the viewfinder
- if the IS system breaks you may not be able to take photos with the camera (i.e. KM 7D cameras with broken in-body IS systems couldn't take photos)

in-lens:
+optimized for each lens; more effective (esp. for supertelephotos)
+see the effects in the viewfinder
+also assists AF because the image is steadied, allowing for easier contrast/phase detection
+if the IS system breaks you're only out that one lens for the shoot
-more expensive as you have to buy each lens separately
-many lenses still lack IS/VR, especially small fast primes

I believe Olympus had one of the first body IS systems but someone can confirm that.

Konica Minolta had the first in-body IS DSLRs, and their technology was acquired by Sony when KM went under. Pentax and Olympus followed, in that order.

[gryphonslair99]

IMO which is better or worse is a subjective thing. There are more things that go into which is the best IS than just the mechanics.

From a mechanical standpoint alone, in lens IS is superior to in body. It is designed to be optimized for that lens and that lens only. Just as a top quality prime is sharper than a top quality zoom. The mechanics of in body IS can not move the sensor far enough to compensate for the magnification of shake with a long telephoto or super telephoto lens.

From a user standpoint however there are many things to consider. For the average picture taker, I can see in body being of greater value as it will assist with all lenses. From my experience the average picture taker can range from having virtually no skills to average photographic skills with a DSLR. They want to take pictures. For this kind of person in body is a great thing to have. For one thing he average picture taker usually does not purchase top of the line glass that comes with top of the line prices.

For the serious photographer, be they advanced amatures or working photographers, their knowledge and skill level is different. They usually have developed the physical skills along with the knowledge to have a much reduced need for full time IS. They have mastered the techniques to shooting at slow shutter speed in a pinch or better still have and use a monopod or tripod when the situation calls for it. That is just part of their knowledge and skill, having and using the right tools. For this kind of photographer the best mechanical system is what they will most likely choose. In this instance it can even be cheaper to have in lens IS.

Example: (All prices from B&H with out any rebates of any kind. All on a 70-200 f2.8 lens)
Canon L = $1,699.00 with built in IS
Nikon = $1,624.95 with built in IS
Sony = $1,999,95 No in lens IS
Pentax = They have nothing comperable.
Olympus = They have nothing comparable.

The bottom line is, the best IS is the one each individual person needs. For the person that will never own a 70-200 f2.8 or a 400 f2.8, or 600 f4.0 then in body is perfectly fine. For the photographer that will, then in lens is the better choice. For those in the middle, again that is something they need to decide, with an understanding of the positives and negatives of each. For that I think that cyclohexane has a pretty complete assessment.

[sean_buerger]

What if you don't have either option!? Add a gyro onto your camera Cheers, S.

[Sparky98]

In very non-technical terms this is how I see in body stabilization. It is like buying a hat that is "1 size fits all". The hat will fit one head size perfectly but for the rest of us that have smaller or larger heads it will either be too loose or too tight. I see in body stabilization as a pretty good fit for most lenses but not a perfect fit all lenses. However, I imagine as technology improves there will be little difference between in body and in lens - for all I know we may be there now.

The main drawback I see to in body stabilization is that if it fails then you will have no stabilization for any lens and the camera may not work. With in lens stabilization at least if it fails in one lens the rest of your lenses will work properly. I have one camera body and I had rather send a lens off to be repaired than have to send the camera off. At least I will be able to keep on shooting.

[sean_buerger]

See, this where the gyro comes in

If it fails you get it repaired, while you still keep all your lenses and your camera. S.