?? About body IS or Lens IS

[keepright]

Originally Posted by Loa

I've also heard that in-lens stabilization is better, but have there been tests to show that?

This hardly counts as a rigid or scientific test, but I've attempted to replicate a shutter speed / angle of view (300mm-equivalent) combination that a friend of mine shot sharply with an in-lens IS. I use a camera with very good in-body IS (olympus E-3) and couldn't match his performance.

I haven't really seen anything in this thread that I disagree with. My own experience has been that IS is a useful feature, and I like having it apply to all of my lenses. I do have plenty of photos, from wide to telephoto, that I simply couldn't have hand-held at the shutter speeds I attained. But if I was looking to spend uber-money for a system that I was only going to use for uber-telephoto, I'd consider a D300/40D with some 300 and 500mm stabalized primes instead. Of course, these focal lengths are best on a tripod anyway, which negates the advantage of IS....

If you buy a camera with built-in IS it will help all of your lenses; then the next camera you buy will probably have even better IS, and it will help all of your lenses even more. If you buy a lens with IS, you will probably never replace it with a new model simply gain better stabilization.

And I predict that within two years either Canon or Nikon will add in-body IS to their lineup, at which point they'll act like they've invented it (or overcome massive technical obstacles) and the other major manufacturer will quickly follow 'their' lead.

[00silvergt]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

I would imagine that Canon and Nikon "moving more product" is 90% of why their lenses seem less expensive. This has been discussed several times amongst Olympus folks, or mainly, possible Olympus folks.

But some of the disparity in price isn't really that much given that Olympus is a 2x factor camera, while Canon or Nikon is 1.6x or 1.5x, and they (Oly) seem pretty much as sharp as the C&N counterparts.

I think it (image stabilization) still isn't a sole reason to choose one type or another. It isn't the sole reason to choose brand A or brand B camera either. It still is a long list of reasons to choose the "family" that fits the shooter the best. IS/VR/OIS allows one to have a tool that really does work. So whatever "type" they are afforded in the camera/lens "family", can be worth the price.

I agree with you, one should never pick a brand for only one reason. It should be a combination, that will draw one to another, otherwise, it maybe unwise.

[thekorn]

Originally Posted by keepright

And I predict that within two years either Canon or Nikon will add in-body IS to their lineup, at which point they'll act like they've invented it (or overcome massive technical obstacles) and the other major manufacturer will quickly follow 'their' lead.

Now that would be something! Imagine, sensor based IS + VR! I know darn well it wouldn't add up linearly, but even the thought of a five stop improvement (forget eight, which would be four + four) would be killer!

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

The pro or con on which is more accurate is probably a pretty small difference, but the cost can be quite large considering (compare a Canon 70-200 with and without).

Please note: the IS is NOT the only difference between the Canon 70-200F2.8 and F4.0's: the NON-IS lenses aren't weather sealed.

...€0.02...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

[Max@Home]

...and all of you are forgetting one more PRO for in-lens IS/VR/OS: the image is not only stabilized in the viewfinder, but also on the AF sensor, this makes fast & accurate AF easier, especially in dark and/or low-contrast situations...

...€0.02...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

[Mr. Pickles]

I know the weather sealing deal. But yeah, we better mention it or the Canon folks will be all upset. And other than some delicate manual focusing work, I'm not so sure than seeing the stabilized image before pushing the shutter is a drop dead requirement...

[00silvergt]

Originally Posted by Max@Home

...and all of you are forgetting one more PRO for in-lens IS/VR/OS: the image is not only stabilized in the viewfinder, but also on the AF sensor, this makes fast & accurate AF easier, especially in dark and/or low-contrast situations...

...€0.02...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

Good point, the SLR's use the mirror for focusing, so this makes plenty of sense.

[thekorn]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

I know the weather sealing deal. But yeah, we better mention it or the Canon folks will be all upset. And other than some delicate manual focusing work, I'm not so sure than seeing the stabilized image before pushing the shutter is a drop dead requirement...

Actually, it's kind of nice. There have been a few pictures I didn't take after seeing that VR simply wasn't going to be able to compensate for my crappy position/technique. (So I usually find a different way to take the picture, but nice to know ahead of time.)