snubbr.com

Which is better IS/VR in the camera or the lens?
Just wondering which is better...having IS/VR in the body or in the lens? Any big difference?..

Comments (9)

In-lens stabilization supposedly handles stabilization better for telephoto lenses. In-lens stabilization also provides the benefit of stabilizing the optical viewfinder image (and the image fed to the autofocus system) in a (D)SLR..

In-body stabilization is not as good, but you get the benefit on nearly all your lenses (no need to wait for the camera vendor to build a IS/VR lens)...

Comment #1

Irishav8r wrote:.

Just wondering which is better...having IS/VR in the body or in thelens? Any big difference?.

Hi.

There are many threads on this but search is probably down so here goes..

You will get lots of people who use Canon and Nikon making statements about in lens being better. There are many many post with this....but it's almost always theory with very few actual photos. The In lens people will say that it works better for telephotos and it is an advantage to see it happen..

I use a lowly Pentax K100d with in body stabilisation....this is supposed to give around 2 stops, having said that many of us get far more...I generally get 4 or 5 stops but have recently posted a photo with SEVEN stops of stabilisation and that was with a 35mm fov of 765mm (who says in camera does not work well?)..

Canon and Nikon use in lens because when it was first invented it was with film and so was the only way....why they STILL use it is all opinion (mine is because they can make you pay for it...and they have kinda backed themselves into a corner...again that is merely an opinion and not fact.) Interestingly though most dslr companies that have developed it since digital have gone for in camera...( ok there is Panasonic)..

Being able to see the picture being stabilised is not something that I get....once you have pushed the shutter it is to late ..no matter if it's in lens or in camera..

There are advantages and disadvantages with BOTH systems...Panning for in lens, ALL lenses stabilised for in camera. BOTH systems work and work very well. Which is Better?....depends on the time, day, person etc etc...what works for one will not work for others...many of us with Pentax get more than 4 stops all the time, other will get less with the same equipment..

I sure like being able to pick up a 40 year old lens, or any of my favourites knowing it's going to be stabilised....plus it will get better and better in camera and it will just cost a few dollars more when I upgrade my camera...for in lens you have to upgrade the lens..

Neil..

Comment #2

Tom_N wrote:.

In-lens stabilization supposedly handles stabilization better fortelephoto lenses. In-lens stabilization also provides the benefit ofstabilizing the optical viewfinder image (and the image fed to theautofocus system) in a (D)SLR..

In-body stabilization is not as good, but you get the benefit onnearly all your lenses (no need to wait for the camera vendor tobuild a IS/VR lens)..

You are certainly correct about in-lens being useful for stabilizing the "optical" image in the viewfinder; (albeit often prefer that to remain un-stabilized because it helps me develop my "holding" skills..

However ... the debate continues about which is best. Some recent reviews show that in-body may be more effective, even with telephotos..

Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto.

( Do You Ever STOP to THINK and FORGET to START Again ??? )..

Comment #3

As a Nikon shooter, I have to have in-lens stabilization, like Canon users do - and I would probably prefer it that way anyway. It does work very well in my 70-200VR..

But as others have said here, there is no evidence that in-body IS is inferior at all from tests that have been done..

Alex.

Http://alexandjustine.smugmug.com/..

Comment #4

I think that for longer focal lengths IS/VR in the lens is better, as it's usually custom tuned to work best. However that's expensive and I think that the advantage is not as great as it used to be...

I think also that in the early days in-camera IS/VR was not as good as in lens. However things have moved forward and the technology now is more mature. There may be a difference still, but the gap is much smaller and I think the fact you get all your lenses instantly transformed into IS/VR versions with in-body IS makes such a difference to most users ( i.e. people with non-pro budgets ), that it's the way to go..

Cameralabs did a test of the E510 comparing it's in-body IS with a Leica lens that had optical stabilization. I'd suggest you look for that..

StephenG.

Pentax K100DFuji S5200Fuji E900PCLinuxOS..

Comment #5

You'll have to pardon my ignorance but how do you get seven stops out of either in lens or in camera..

Surely it works to a certain level and then doesn't. There's only so far the parts can move..

It sounds to me more like you have developed a good holding/ shooting style rather then it being the camera or lens..

Neil holmes wrote:.

Irishav8r wrote:.

Just wondering which is better...having IS/VR in the body or in thelens? Any big difference?.

Hi.

There are many threads on this but search is probably down so here goes..

You will get lots of people who use Canon and Nikon making statementsabout in lens being better. There are many many post withthis....but it's almost always theory with very few actual photos.The In lens people will say that it works better for telephotos andit is an advantage to see it happen..

I use a lowly Pentax K100d with in body stabilisation....this issupposed to give around 2 stops, having said that many of us get farmore...I generally get 4 or 5 stops but have recently posted a photowith SEVEN stops of stabilisation and that was with a 35mm fov of765mm (who says in camera does not work well?)..

Canon and Nikon use in lens because when it was first invented it waswith film and so was the only way....why they STILL use it is allopinion (mine is because they can make you pay for it...and they havekinda backed themselves into a corner...again that is merely anopinion and not fact.) Interestingly though most dslr companiesthat have developed it since digital have gone for in camera...( okthere is Panasonic)..

Being able to see the picture being stabilised is not something thati get....once you have pushed the shutter it is to late ..no matterif it's in lens or in camera..

There are advantages and disadvantages with BOTH systems...Panningfor in lens, ALL lenses stabilised for in camera. BOTHsystems work and work very well. Which is Better?....depends onthe time, day, person etc etc...what works for one will not work forothers...many of us with Pentax get more than 4 stops all the time,other will get less with the same equipment..

I sure like being able to pick up a 40 year old lens, or any of myfavourites knowing it's going to be stabilised....plus it will getbetter and better in camera and it will just cost a few dollars morewhen I upgrade my camera...for in lens you have to upgrade the lens..

Neil..

Comment #6

Phototext wrote:.

You'll have to pardon my ignorance but how do you get seven stops outof either in lens or in camera..

Surely it works to a certain level and then doesn't. There's only sofar the parts can move..

It sounds to me more like you have developed a good holding/ shootingstyle rather then it being the camera or lens..

Hi.

Since I started replying to posts about image stabilisation I think I have improved by a stop or so in my holding ability..

The photo at 7 stops was in a sequence of 3...one ok one almost ok and one not so good (but still sort of allright....so yes the shake reduction is a major part of it but the comditions were ideal....early morning inside, no wind the right temp etc...so I was at my best....and the Person is the MOST important part of the stabilisation...well the part that stops working first.....I doubt I could have done as well at the end of the day..

As I said I mainly get around 4 or 5 stops....any more than that in day to day use is getting way beyond what I need anyway....so again it works for me.....I am also sure that there will be people who can get more stops out of it than me...both in camera and in lens..

Ok so I and others may be able to hand hold a stop or 2 below what I/we are supposed to be able to....but even so I would still be getting a regular 3 or 4 stops improvement...which still puts you in the area of speeds that are just silly (and I only use to reply to stabilisation threads....never real use photos)..

Neil.

Neil holmes wrote:.

Irishav8r wrote:.

Just wondering which is better...having IS/VR in the body or in thelens? Any big difference?.

Hi.

There are many threads on this but search is probably down so here goes..

You will get lots of people who use Canon and Nikon making statementsabout in lens being better. There are many many post withthis....but it's almost always theory with very few actual photos.The In lens people will say that it works better for telephotos andit is an advantage to see it happen..

I use a lowly Pentax K100d with in body stabilisation....this issupposed to give around 2 stops, having said that many of us get farmore...I generally get 4 or 5 stops but have recently posted a photowith SEVEN stops of stabilisation and that was with a 35mm fov of765mm (who says in camera does not work well?)..

Canon and Nikon use in lens because when it was first invented it waswith film and so was the only way....why they STILL use it is allopinion (mine is because they can make you pay for it...and they havekinda backed themselves into a corner...again that is merely anopinion and not fact.) Interestingly though most dslr companiesthat have developed it since digital have gone for in camera...( okthere is Panasonic)..

Being able to see the picture being stabilised is not something thati get....once you have pushed the shutter it is to late ..no matterif it's in lens or in camera..

There are advantages and disadvantages with BOTH systems...Panningfor in lens, ALL lenses stabilised for in camera. BOTHsystems work and work very well. Which is Better?....depends onthe time, day, person etc etc...what works for one will not work forothers...many of us with Pentax get more than 4 stops all the time,other will get less with the same equipment..

I sure like being able to pick up a 40 year old lens, or any of myfavourites knowing it's going to be stabilised....plus it will getbetter and better in camera and it will just cost a few dollars morewhen I upgrade my camera...for in lens you have to upgrade the lens..

Neil..

Comment #7

Neil,.

I usually find the second or third image in a sequence/ burst usually the best, I think that is fairly common..

If you get the chance it would be interesting to see the comparison between in camera and in lens. If you have got a good holding/ shooting technique down and use that on both types and see how they both fair under the same conditions..

I'm not going to change brands or anything, just be interesting to see..

Cheers...

Comment #8

Irishav8r wrote:.

Just wondering which is better...having IS/VR in the body or in thelens? Any big difference?.

There is a simple answer: both..

Each has it's advantages and disadvantages. I'd prefer a camera system that had both. That only exists on a limited scale right now. 4/3rds have stabilized bodies but only one stabilized lens, in a focal length range that will not show much of a difference between systems..

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

Comment #9

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.