?? About body IS or Lens IS

[motox424]

What would be better, a digital SLR with IS built in the body(like the Sony and Pentax I believe) or a Canon with IS lens?

just trying to get a little better understaning of these high tech Digital SLR's. i am from the old film days of photography

[Mr. Pickles]

In theory, and most people's opinion, the better IS is the one's IN the lens. They are "supposed" to be optimized to handle that lens range. But every time you need a new lens, you may need to buy IS again.

The ones in the body have to handle a much wider range of possible lens focal distances, so one would think the system is 'stretched" a bit in doing so. But, you buy IS once in this scenario.

But, regardless of which you way you choose, you need to consider the whole system. Does the system itself offer what you want? If the system you choose has IS in the lens, but it doesn't offer the lens you'd "like to have", or doesn't provide the quality or handling you'd like, then what good is the in-lens IS?

With that said, I got an in-body IS camera, and love it.

[rshunk]

You need to also take into consideration that the in-body IS/VR/SSS is not visible TTL. With the lens IS/VR you are able to see how it effects the shot.

In spite of that fact, as a Sony owner, I love the in-body SSS (Sony calls is Super Steady Shot) because it works with all my lenses; from my 14mm all the way up to my 600mm mirror lens. It has saved several shots that I would not have gotten without it!


Bob S.

[Loa]

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

Loa

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by rshunk

In spite of that fact, as a Sony owner, I love the in-body SSS (Sony calls is Super Steady Shot) because it works with all my lenses; from my 14mm all the way up to my 600mm mirror lens. It has saved several shots that I would not have gotten without it!

How do you know?

[ohenry]

Since I have a Canon system and I'm unlikely to change from that due to the amount of money I already have invested in that system and since Canon has invested heavily into lens IS and is unlikely to depart from that to go with an in-body IS system, I choose to believe that in-lens IS is best --- at least, for me.

[rshunk]

Originally Posted by brian.austin

How do you know?

Easy - I got sharp handheld shots at slow shutter speeds, even with my longer lenses.


Bob S.

[aintnosin]

It does look like Canon and Nikon are trying to answer the challenge from Pentax and Sony with cheap kit lenses that have IS (or VR), so I wonder if this means that IS will start turning up all through their product line?

[Sparky98]

I read a report in some photography magazine, maybe Outdoor Photographer, that stated tests indicate that in lens stabilization has a slight advantage over in body stabilization but my opinion is that as technology advances that advantage will all but disappear. Personally, I feel in lens has the potential to be better because each lens has its own custom stabilization system where the in body system is sort of a one size fits all. I have this phobia about one size fits all. In my experience one size may fit all it just doesn't fit well.

To me one advantage of the in lens system is that if the stabilization quits working you send the lens in to be repaired but if the in body system quits working you have to send the body to be repaired. I can send in one lens and keep taking pictures with my other lenses but if I have to send the body in for repairs all those lenses in the case will just sit there until the body is returned.

This is one of those arguments that we will never solve. Image stabilization works whether it is in the lens or in the body. I am just glad it is available because I can't hold the camera as still as I once did.

[Mr. Pickles]

Originally Posted by Sparky98

To me one advantage of the in lens system is that if the stabilization quits working you send the lens in to be repaired but if the in body system quits working you have to send the body to be repaired. I can send in one lens and keep taking pictures with my other lenses but if I have to send the body in for repairs all those lenses in the case will just sit there until the body is returned.

But there are a lot of people that will argue that you bought your in-lens IS system on every lens, and those with the in-body IS system bought it once, and just on the surface, it seems the in-body system is virtually free, where as the Canon in-lens system seems to be $300 to $500...? Buying once might be cheaper insurance in case they have to send in the body...

[brian.austin]

I don't think you'd go wrong with either system. Personally, it wouldn't be a big decision factor for me. While I usually have it on for my Canon IS lenses, I can't say that I really need it most of the time since I usually shoot either in studio or landscapes.

[ohenry]

With camera sensors getting so much better with noise levels at higher ISOs, it's a simple matter to increase ISO to gain the extra stops needed. While I have IS on my 70-200 lens, I have it turned off or don't worry about it, more often than not. Then I shoot a lot using a tripod, too.

[Sparky98]

Mr. Pickles, I agree with you completely. I do have to purchase the in lens IS system with ever lens I buy that has IS and I pay a premium for it. Hopefully someday that price will be reduced but I am not holding my breath. One major advantage of in body stabilization is the cheaper cost.

When I bought my camera I never really considered the type of IS. I had used Canon cameras in the past and was happy with their system so I stayed with Canon. The only other camera I considered was Nikon and it has in lens also. Many people will buy cameras with in body stabilization and it will serve them well. I would venture to say that the majority of buyers will never know the difference between the two types of stabilization and will be happy with what ever system they purchase.

[00silvergt]

Money...Canon and Noink would lose the extra $500 they charge for IS in their L series. If they built IS into the body then they would render they IS line useless. The first IS lens was made was the 75-300 f/4-5.6 IS. Back in the film days. Back when no one was using stabilizer on the body at all. It is a little too late now. I can't see Canon going that route with EF.

[thekorn]

I must be a contrarian, but I don't consider IS (VR) all that hot. I have a couple VR lenses, and with the possible exception of hand held macro use I just don't find VR to be worth all that much.

Maybe it's because I've concentrated on good hand-holding technique... but really I think it's because VR simply isn't a panacea; it'll help if you need a slightly longer exposure, but it's no substitute for proper technique and/or a good tripod. Since it seems as though I'm always shooting in either great light or really poor light, either I don't need VR or I need super mega awesome unbelievable VR (i.e. a bucket of jell-o!)... which doesn't exist.

That said, if I'm using one of my VR lenses handheld, I'll leave it turned on. But it isn't a feature like exposure compensation where if it was turned off from a previous shoot I'll notice immediately; there have been quite a few times where I've gone a whole session before noticing that the VR was (still) disabled.

[Mr. Pickles]

I don't think this is contrarian or anti-contraian post, is it?

IS/VR/OIS isn't required, especially if one concentrates on technique and other things to make the image the best it can be without additional aid. All about convenience and marketing. Same goes for the need for iso6400.