snubbr.com

body based or lens based image stabilisation.
Which works more effectively or is better, in-built camera stabilisation or lens based stabilisation?..

Comments (18)

I am certainly not the professional on any DSLR question. However I had the same question before I bought my Pentax K10D. The reason I chose body based stabilization is because you have the option to use Shake Reduction (SR) with any lens that your body acepts. What this means is that you have the benefit of SR with a lower priced lens. However, if you find that the body based SR is not sufficient you can use a lens with SR, and turn off the SR in the body. I don't know if you can use the body based and lens based SR at the same time.

It improves the SR of the lens to use SR on the body then that is another benefit of body based SR..

This just made sense to me and that was one of the factors that made me decide to buy a DSLR with body based SR...

Comment #1

They both work OK, and there is virtue in having it available in the camera. I prefer it in the lens, as it can be tailored to each lens range, if it breaks in one lens, you don't lose it all, and most important.... It stabilizes your viewfinder image, where in-body IS does not..

As one person mentioned, it is a battle of choices. I choose one, and you choose another. Then again, even if your brand offered the type of IS I prefer, there is no reason to think that it would be an important feature in making my choice, as it is not. IS is the least consideration in determining a brand to support. It is just one consideration near the end of a long list..

Voyager..

Comment #2

It is generally accepted that a good lens based system is superior in it's performance. Nikon gets full 4 stops out of VRII whereas most body-based systems test out around 2.5 or so. I know Olympus is claiming 4-5 on the new E3, haven't seen a test of it, so who knows..

That said, lens based may have a stop or so advantage on a good IS/VR lens but body based has a 2-3 stop advantage over anything else in my bag that's not VR. Being a Nikon shooter and real fan of some of their VR lenses, I can say that for convenience, cost and ability to work with ALL my lenses I would much prefer a good 3 stop + body based system...

Comment #3

SMPhoto wrote:.

It is generally accepted that a good lens based system is superior init's performance..

By who?.

Neil..

Comment #4

Sorry could not resist..

This comes up very often..

The In lens people will often say in lens and thos with it in body will often say in body..

BOTH systems work. There are thousands of posts saying in lens works better but very few photos in those posts. I have happily posted photos / sequences of photos to counter in lens ones..

Different people will get different results with either in lens or in camera it is not the same for everyone..

Canon stabiolised lenses will not fit on my Pentax camera so I guess it does not matter huh..

Still I am happy that ALL my lenses are stabilised..

Lastly....All manufacturers who have developed stabilisation since digital was introduced with the exception of (I think) ONE Panasonic lens have gone for in body...canon and Nikon developed IS/VR while still using film..

Again BOTH systems work equally..

Neil..

Comment #5

Neil holmes wrote:.

Sorry could not resist..

This comes up very often..

The In lens people will often say in lens and thos with it in bodywill often say in body..

BOTH systems work. There are thousands of posts saying in lensworks better but very few photos in those posts. I have happilyposted photos / sequences of photos to counter in lens ones..

Different people will get different results with either in lens or incamera it is not the same for everyone..

Canon stabiolised lenses will not fit on my Pentax camera so I guessit does not matter huh..

Still I am happy that ALL my lenses are stabilised..

Lastly....All manufacturers who have developed stabilisation sincedigital was introduced with the exception of (I think) ONE Panasoniclens have gone for in body...canon and Nikon developed IS/VR whilestill using film..

Again BOTH systems work equally..

Says who?.

Sorry, could not resist. I expect that there are variations between systems and all systems do poorer at lower focal lengths because translation (which is not corrected) becomes more significant. At longer focal lengths, rotation is dominant and this is what is corrected in AS, IS and VR systems.Leonhttp://homepage.mac.com/leonwittwer/landscapes.htm..

Comment #6

I've used a limited selection of both, having had a KM 7D and now a Nikon D200 with one vr lens. Probably neither system works as well as some adherents or advertising suggests. At least not under all conditions. So your expectations need to be tempered by subject choices..

One can pick up a couple of stops with use of better lenses and upping the iso some as well. Where AS comes into play is on suitable subject matter when you can't get slow enough on aperture and iso alone. Getting 2-4 stops doesn't help in shooting dynamic subjects where shutter speeds need to be high to stop motion. 1/125 doesn't stop action like 1/1000. It could be significant if shooting low light where flash is not allowed, say a museum. 2-4 stops won't get you a speed that gives flowing water that silky look..

Keep in mind that as a "selection" factor that as already pointed out, there are a lot of other considerations in choosing "systems...

Comment #7

Leon Wittwer wrote:.

Neil holmes wrote:.

Sorry could not resist..

This comes up very often..

The In lens people will often say in lens and thos with it in bodywill often say in body..

BOTH systems work. There are thousands of posts saying in lensworks better but very few photos in those posts. I have happilyposted photos / sequences of photos to counter in lens ones..

Different people will get different results with either in lens or incamera it is not the same for everyone..

Canon stabiolised lenses will not fit on my Pentax camera so I guessit does not matter huh..

Still I am happy that ALL my lenses are stabilised..

Lastly....All manufacturers who have developed stabilisation sincedigital was introduced with the exception of (I think) ONE Panasoniclens have gone for in body...canon and Nikon developed IS/VR whilestill using film..

Again BOTH systems work equally..

Says who?.

Sorry, could not resist. I expect that there are variations betweensystems and all systems do poorer at lower focal lengths becausetranslation (which is not corrected) becomes more significant. Atlonger focal lengths, rotation is dominant and this is what iscorrected in AS, IS and VR systems.Leonhttp://homepage.mac.com/leonwittwer/landscapes.htm.

Lol.

Yes....Guess I just get sick of seeing post after post saying in lens is better but with VERY few photos...while generally the photos in threads like this are from in body users..

Since my camera is supposed to be the worst of the bunch of any stabilisation method I can only provide my pathetic efforts..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

This feeble attempt is 510mm on a k100d (765mm 35mm fov) at 1/30.

Since those Canikon teles are two stops better I look forward to dozens of photos following hand held at 1/8!.

Neil.

Link back to flickrhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/26884588@N00/..

Comment #8

Good to see the reasonable responses here. In a nutshell, you'll get slightly better performance on fewer lenses with lens based, slightly inferior performance on all lenses with body-based..

Two interesting points that are rarely brought up:.

1. Comments say lens based IS usually results in image degradation relative to the same lens in non-IS incarnation, due to the added element and it's "looseness". Of course, this is during optimal conditions such as on a tripod, where IS doesn't help resolve blur. I believe you are saddled with this penalty, however small, even if the IS is shut off..

2. More importantly, the gyros in the lens need like 1 second to spool up. Snapshots can result in blurry images. This isn't an issue with in-body, which can respond instantly..

Feel free to correct my statements, as I am merely repeating what I've read here. Yes, for the record I use in-body stabilization. I like to have it on all my lenses all the time, for I am too lazy to hold the camera steady. .

Greg..

Comment #9

They both work well.just one system will cost you a lot more moolah..

Oly E-510 w/in-body IS on, f:3.5 at 1/10 sec, 14mm (28mm 35mm equivalent), ISO 800 handheld:.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

J. D.Colorful Colorado.

Remember.always keep the box and everything that came in it!..

Comment #10

Well, you said I could correct your statements...  .

Two interesting points that are rarely brought up:.

1. Comments say lens based IS usually results in image degradationrelative to the same lens in non-IS incarnation, due to the addedelement and it's "looseness". Of course, this is during optimalconditions such as on a tripod, where IS doesn't help resolve blur.I believe you are saddled with this penalty, however small, even ifthe IS is shut off..

Not necessarily. Depends on design. If the IS in the lens moves elements that are already there performing a function and stabilizes before the shot, then there would not necessarily be any degradation. There are IS lenses whose IS performance is indistinguishable from their non-IS counterparts. The quality of a good lens probably has as much to do with when it was released than whether or not it has IS..

2. More importantly, the gyros in the lens need like 1 second tospool up. Snapshots can result in blurry images. This isn't an issuewith in-body, which can respond instantly..

No. IS/VR/AS do not depend on mechanical gyros with a required spin up time. The devices that are used are solid state and are instantaneous for all practical purposes. It does take time to physically move and let settle whatever must be moved and then there must be time for the AF to operate. This all seems to take a small fraction of a second on my camera with IS lenses..

Feel free to correct my statements, as I am merely repeating whatI've read here. Yes, for the record I use in-body stabilization. Ilike to have it on all my lenses all the time, for I am too lazy tohold the camera steady. .

Fair enough..

Leonhttp://homepage.mac.com/leonwittwer/landscapes.htm..

Comment #11

Leon Wittwer wrote:.

Not necessarily. Depends on design. If the IS in the lens moveselements that are already there performing a function and stabilizesbefore the shot, then there would not necessarily be any degradation.There are IS lenses whose IS performance is indistinguishable fromtheir non-IS counterparts. The quality of a good lens probably hasas much to do with when it was released than whether or not it has IS..

True. I'm just quoting here, remember?.

Http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...F-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx.

"The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM Lens is often reported to be sharper than the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L USM Lens. The difference is said to be caused by the extra lens elements in the IS version. Any center-of-the-image advantage the non-IS lens has is not significant on my Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II.".

2. More importantly, the gyros in the lens need like 1 second tospool up. Snapshots can result in blurry images. This isn't an issuewith in-body, which can respond instantly..

No. IS/VR/AS do not depend on mechanical gyros with a required spinup time. The devices that are used are solid state and areinstantaneous for all practical purposes. It does take time tophysically move and let settle whatever must be moved and then theremust be time for the AF to operate. This all seems to take a smallfraction of a second on my camera with IS lenses..

Maybe 1 second was long....

Http://forums.dpreview.com/...ums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&thread=25649745.

Greg..

Comment #12

Http://www.popphoto.com/...15/image-stabilization-special-stop-the-shake.htmlTelecorder (Dave)FZee30+RD-S+OlyTC1.7XDee50+Nikon 35mm F2.0D-AF+Nikkor18-70DX+Tam70-300L+BIGMA 50-500 EX HSMMy Image Galleries.

Http://www.nikonians-images.com/...hp?cat=500&ppuser=121399&password=.

Http://Telecorder.smugmug.com/.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comment #13

Telecorder wrote:.

Http://www.popphoto.com/...15/image-stabilization-special-stop-the-shake.htmlTelecorder (Dave)FZee30+RD-S+OlyTC1.7XDee50+Nikon 35mm F2.0D-AF+Nikkor18-70DX+Tam70-300L+BIGMA 50-500 EX HSMMy Image Galleries.

Http://www.nikonians-images.com/...hp?cat=500&ppuser=121399&password=.

Http://Telecorder.smugmug.com/.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Different tests seem to yield different results (funny about that since I maintain different people will also get different results)..

The K100d scores much lower in the test linked...some people WILL only get a stop or two benefit......many of us get far more..

Of course I am still waiting for all those photos using Canon and Nikon at 500mm on a crop body at 1/8 (which is two stops better than the photo I posted since my camera is supposed to be 2 stops worse)..

NeilAs I said earlier, I look forrward to LOTS of photos demosnstraing..

Comment #14

Nice Alamo shot. I don't live too far from it, hope you enjoyed San Antonio...fun town to visit. That said, 1/10 at 28mm equivalent is something I can shoot hand held without IS all day (or night as it may be) long. That's only a little over 1 stop slower shutter than recommended safe 1/lens. I have shot 28mm equiv on my S5 with 18-200VR at 1 sec steady. Not every shot at that range is good, but half or so are.

Not saying that the 510 CAN"T do that just that 1/10 doesn't prove to much. However, like I said earlier, I would still trade for in body ever IF it was a stop less effective. That would still make it 3 stops better than my 80-200 2.8 without any...

Comment #15

SMPhoto wrote:.

Nice Alamo shot. I don't live too far from it, hope you enjoyed SanAntonio...fun town to visit. That said, 1/10 at 28mm equivalent issomething I can shoot hand held without IS all day (or night as itmay be) long. That's only a little over 1 stop slower shutter thanrecommended safe 1/lens. I have shot 28mm equiv on my S5 with18-200VR at 1 sec steady. Not every shot at that range is good, buthalf or so are.

Not sayingthat the 510 CAN"T do that just that 1/10 doesn't prove to much.However, like I said earlier, I would still trade for in body ever IFit was a stop less effective. That would still make it 3 stops betterthan my 80-200 2.8 without any..

Best I could do was .3 seconds..

Of course it IS a 40 year old lens I have had for less than 3 hours most of which was spent in line in shops cost $27 Australian (plus postage)..

Oh and it is 425mm on a 1.5 crp body. (630 aprox).

Here is a PHOTO.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Seriously though many of my photos at this silly speed/focal length are blurred....Antishake just means that you can get more keepers..

I am glad your vr lens is so good. As I keep saying BOTH systems work well.Can we see some photos please?.

Neil.

Link back to flickrhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/26884588@N00/..

Comment #16

Gregory King wrote:.

Leon Wittwer wrote:.

Not necessarily. Depends on design. If the IS in the lens moveselements that are already there performing a function and stabilizesbefore the shot, then there would not necessarily be any degradation.There are IS lenses whose IS performance is indistinguishable fromtheir non-IS counterparts. The quality of a good lens probably hasas much to do with when it was released than whether or not it has IS..

True. I'm just quoting here, remember?.

Http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...F-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx.

"The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM Lens is often reported to besharper than the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L USM Lens. Thedifference is said to be caused by the extra lens elements in the ISversion. Any center-of-the-image advantage the non-IS lens has is notsignificant on my Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II.".

You made what appeared to be a general statement. The situation with one IS does not necessarily apply to all other IS lenses and, indeed, in case does not..

2. More importantly, the gyros in the lens need like 1 second tospool up. Snapshots can result in blurry images. This isn't an issuewith in-body, which can respond instantly..

No. IS/VR/AS do not depend on mechanical gyros with a required spinup time. The devices that are used are solid state and areinstantaneous for all practical purposes. It does take time tophysically move and let settle whatever must be moved and then theremust be time for the AF to operate. This all seems to take a smallfraction of a second on my camera with IS lenses..

Maybe 1 second was long....

Http://forums.dpreview.com/...ums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&thread=25649745.

Greg.

Leonhttp://homepage.mac.com/leonwittwer/landscapes.htm..

Comment #17

If you really want to see photos that glorify the in-lens stabilization, go to the Nikon D40/D50/D80 forum and search for Tech1961. His photos are far superior to what's been posted here..

I'm not saying one is better than the other, but pretty much everything posted here is not sharp at all. What Tech can do with his 70-300VR on his D40 is pretty amazing. Proves the addage that it's not the camera, but what's behind the camera..

It's essentially pointless to argue over which is better. Who cares? There are far more important things to consider when choosing your system. Just go shoot..

Http://www.flickr.com/photos/..

Comment #18

Click Here to View All...

Sponsored Amazon Deals:

1. Get big savings on Amazon warehouse deals.
2. Save up to 70% on Amazon Products.


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.