Image stabilizer on lens or camera body?

Question

What are the pros and cons of an image stabilizer on the lens or camera body of a digital SLR? Does it make any difference?

Answer 1

In tests, the lens-based Image Stabilization or Vibration Reduction system comes out slightly ahead of in-camera systems.



However, with the IS/VR in the camera body every lens used will have that benefit. So someone using a Sony or Pentax DSLR and using legacy lenses (like the Minolta Maxxum on the Sony or a 30 yr old K-mount on the Pentax) will enjoy an IS/VR enabled lens.



IMO, having to pay extra for IS/VR with every lens is not economical. Using a 25 yr old lens and having the benefit of IS/VR simply makes more sense to me.

Answer 2

Many camera manufacturers have different opinions on the advantages and disadvantages of the two systems.



In camera sensor shift has the advantage of always being there, no matter what lens you should decide to put on the camera, and is thus its main advantage. However it is not viewable through the view finder, a problem that one might find quite irritating.



The advantage with lens shifting systems (such is IS or VR as called by Canon and Nikon respectively) is that they can be viewed through the view finder, something that most photographers will agree is an important thing, and will value much in the same way they use the viewfinders depth of field button. The key disadvantage of lens shifting systems is that they tend to cost more to implicate, which is the key reason why manufacturers such as Sony (a more consumer orientated manufacturer) have chosen to use inbuilt image stabilisation into the camera body.



As for the effectiveness of the two systems, there is very little difference, all image stabilisers remove around 2-4 stops of shake at relatively similar quality. If I were to make a choice, I would go with lens shifting, as it rely on the lens and I find it quite important to see the effect the stabilisation has on my subject as I am a wild life photographer often shooting at around 600mm.



However this opinion did not affect the choice of camera I went for, it just happened to work out that way. When choosing a camera there are much more important things to consider, such as upgrades (what camera will you by next) and lens, and customer support, and above all the way the camera fits your hand. Image stabilisation should be near the bottom of your list with gadgets such as sensor cleaning and Live view.

Answer 3

relies upon what you mean with the aid of very needed. photograph stabilization began interior the lens whilst human beings have been nevertheless employing movie. oftentimes, that's concept that photograph stabilization is a extra effective as a part of the lens particularly than something geared up into the physique of the digital camera (even although advancements in technologies have opened a Pandora's container to that concept). a physically powerful occasion is the Nikon VR lens sequence. VR = Vibration help. photograph stabilization in DSLR's is a particularly new technologies. to respond to your question with an user-friendly answer: NO a geared up-in photograph stabilizer isn't a "would desire to have" function. except you're photographing consistently with slow shutter speeds, no flash, and/or have shaky hands.

Answer 4

I find my in body shake reduction works well. In low light conditions I can keep the ISO down and go for slower shutter speeds with less fear of camera shake.



I can also choose smaller apertures to maiximise depth of field while hand holding without losing sharpness to camera shake.



All this for every lens I already own, no need to buy new ones to get shake reduction.



Also when buying new ones no need to spend an extra $100 or more for every lens for shake reduction.



http://photography.suite101.com/article.cfm/pentax_dslr_shake_reduction



Only on long telephotos does the in camera shake reduction lose slightly to the in lens version.



Well those long lenses are heavy so I allways use a monopod for mine, so camera shake is not an issue for me.