DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Stabilisaton - body vs lens
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 35, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 03/19/2012 09:35:18 PM · #1
A camera salesman recently told me that stabilised lenses were better than a stabilised body. Is this true, and how much difference does it make? I notice that the new Olympus micro four thirds camera will activate the stabiliser on a half press of the shutter button.
 03/19/2012 09:43:33 PM · #2
In our DSLR world, there are two kinds of image stabilization; "optical" and "mechanical". The former lives in the lens, in the form of a lens element that is moved around to compensate for vibration sensed by piezo-electric sensors. Mechanical stabilization is done by moving the sensor itself. On the plus side, that's cheaper. But there are negatives.

"In-body image stabilization requires the lens to have a larger output image circle because the sensor is moved during exposure and thus uses a larger part of the image. Compared to lens movements in optical image stabilisation systems the sensor movements are quite large, so the effectiveness is limited by the maximum range of sensor movement, where a typical modern optically stabilized lens has greater freedom. The required sensor movement (both speed and range) increase with the focal length of the lens being used, making sensor-shift technology less suited for very long telephoto lenses, especially when using slower shutter speeds because the available motion range of the sensor quickly becomes insufficient to cope with the increasing image displacement." (from wiki.)

R.
 03/19/2012 09:51:09 PM · #3
As well, stabilisation technology differs, at least incamera. Also point and shoots, so called, may have the one or the other, and here I believe the in lens stabilisation is better. Pana's digicams have had the in lens from almost the beginning, and very effective they are.
 03/19/2012 09:53:01 PM · #4
Thanks Robert. So it seems that's one bit of accurate information I've been given recently. I've questioned so much, believing that salesmen are trying to sell the makes they keep and drive me away from those they don't.

If I'm going to buy a micro four thirds camera I might still be stuck with Olympus and the stabilised body though because I don't think I'm going to be able to get the Panasonic I wanted. I don't suppose there's any perfect camera available.
 03/19/2012 11:20:00 PM · #5
Beware that some cameras (especially P&S) advertise stabilization, but what they really do is bump up the ISO to get a shorter shutter speed.
 03/20/2012 12:10:52 AM · #6
Yes. I think they call that "intelligent stabilisation." Why we read reviews. Just wanted to plug Panasonic's track record with IS.
 03/20/2012 07:14:49 AM · #7
I wasn't thinking Point and Shoot, but the comparison between Panasonic and Olympus in the micro four thirds cameras.
 03/20/2012 07:47:13 AM · #8
Originally posted by GinaRothfels:
... I don't suppose there's any perfect camera available.

These look pretty good to me! :-D

All with image stabilization.
 03/20/2012 08:01:45 AM · #9
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by GinaRothfels:
... I don't suppose there's any perfect camera available.

These look pretty good to me! :-D

All with image stabilization.


At this stage I'm only looking at Panasonic and Olympus because they're the only mirrorless cameras with the features I want, a big one being the ability to focus and shoot direct from the touchscreen. It may not be a feature I'll use much, but given the fact that I often miss shots because I can't get the right focus point in time, it's certainly a feature I want.

Message edited by author 2012-03-20 08:02:18.
 03/20/2012 08:03:40 AM · #10
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by GinaRothfels:
... I don't suppose there's any perfect camera available.

These look pretty good to me! :-D

All with image stabilization.


They seem a little biased towards Sony !

03/20/2012 08:16:50 AM · #11
Gina, this is an interesting thread. It's pretty obvious that anybody happy with their camera is going to be biased. With advertising dollars it's also hard to find an honest review. You can only do so much and then you have to make your choice. If you're not very excited about the camera you are buying I'd wait. Never reluctantly purchase something that you'll be stuck with. Not to complicate the decision but you might do better by see which lenses you want since they will be around longer than the camera body. If you want prime lenses IS might not be an option.
 03/20/2012 08:32:26 AM · #12
Originally posted by GinaRothfels:
A camera salesman recently told me that stabilised lenses were better than a stabilised body. Is this true, and how much difference does it make? I notice that the new Olympus micro four thirds camera will activate the stabiliser on a half press of the shutter button.


My only experience with stabilization was with stabilized canon lenses vs. stabilized sensor (in camera, such as with some Pentax models).
My personal impression on long focal lenses (400mm equivalent or more) was that there was no significant edge for one or the other approach.
But I guess different people will tell you different things.
No idea at shorter focal lenses. I mean, it's useful on a stabilized body, but I never really tried a stabilized 50mm or 35mm, if there is any :)
A stabilized lens will work even when framing, which many find pleasant at long focal lenses, but also drain your battery faster.
In camera stabilization will stabilize any lens you can mount, thus saving you money as stabilized lenses are quite expensive.

Just my 2 cent.

03/20/2012 08:32:50 AM · #13
Like everything in life there are pros and cons

In-body
- Stabilizes all your lenses not just the ones with IS
- As you upgrade bodies (2-4 year cycle) you generally get stabilization improvements (you generally do not upgrade lenses as often).

In-lens
- Tests have shown it can sometimes work better (0.5 to 1 stops) as it is fine tuned to the lens
- Lens costs more as you keep buying the IS in each one

I have used in-body for the last 4 years on Sony DSLRs, so that is my background. Seems to work well, but I have not compared it to other offerings.
 03/20/2012 08:43:47 AM · #14
i have image stabilization on my body AND lenses, its called a tripod.

03/20/2012 09:07:17 AM · #15
Originally posted by mike_311:
i have image stabilization on my body AND lenses, its called a tripod.


I have that too. Just hate carrying it around and rarely do.

I like the idea of a stabilized body, so that all my lenses are stabilized. It's just when I mentioned it, a salesman at a shop which doesn't stock Olympus said stabilized lenses were better. He actually seemed very biased AGAINST Olympus and I'm not sure why.

03/20/2012 09:17:21 AM · #16
Advantages of Image Stabilized lenses

There is a body of opinion (mostly from Canon and Nikon...) which states that optically stabilized lenses are capable of better stabilization than moving sensor body based systems. The claim is that since each stabilization hardware is dedicated to a single lens, the performance parameters can be tuned to that particular lens. In addition, a very small displacement of an optical element can result in a large image shift, so large amplitude shifts can more easily be corrected. This may be more of an issue with long telephoto lenses than wideangle lenses, since the image shift for a given amount of camera movement is proportional to the focal length of the lens in use.

A second, and undeniable, advantage of image stabilized lenses is that not only do they stabilize the image on the sensor, they also stabilize the image in the viewfinder too. This leads to a better user experience and allows the photographer to chose a moment to release the shutter when image movement appears to be at a minimum.

Advantages of senor shift body based image stabilization

The primary advantage of body based stabilization is that it's effective with every lens mounted on the camera. It doesn't matter if it's the latest autofocus super-zoom, or a 30 year old manual focus lens, in each case the image is stabilized. To make matters even better (or worse depending on your point of view), you can stabilize wideangle and normal primes. As far as I know there are no image stabilized Canon or Nikon wideangle prime lenses at all, so it really doesn't matter if lens based IS would be better, since there are no such lenses!

Image StabilizationThe second obvious advantage is that you only pay for the IS system once, when you buy the camera body. This wouldn't be so great if it added $1000 to the cost of the body, but it doesn't. It's hard to say what it does cost, but when you consider the new Pentax K200D will sell for $699.99 , the Olympus EVOLT E-510 sells for $500 and the Sony A200 will sell for $700 (with a lens included), it's pretty obvious that sensor shift IS doesn't add much to the cost. Maybe $100, though probably more like $50. Canon now have IS lenses selling for under $200 , but it's a fair bet that the new lower cost IS electronics and optics used in these new lenses are adding about $50 to the cost of each lens. For lenses like the EF70-200/2.8L , the addition of IS increases the cost by about $450.

from here
 03/20/2012 10:06:04 AM · #17
good luck with your search for a mirror-less camera. I have been mirror-less for a year now, and I love it! I own the Panasonic Gh2.
 03/20/2012 10:07:06 AM · #18
Originally posted by mike_311:
[i]Advantages of Image Stabilized lenses

A second, and undeniable, advantage of image stabilized lenses is that not only do they stabilize the image on the sensor, they also stabilize the image in the viewfinder too. This leads to a better user experience and allows the photographer to chose a moment to release the shutter when image movement appears to be at a minimum.



And according to the preview on the Olympus OM-D E-M5 a half press of the shutter button will give that advantage even with a stabilized body. And, as one can put Panasonic lenses (some of which are stabilized) on an Olympus micro four thirds body, I suppose that camera really is offering the best of both worlds.

Thanks for a very comprehensive answer.
 03/20/2012 10:19:57 AM · #19
Originally posted by GinaRothfels:
... a salesman at a shop which doesn't stock Olympus said stabilized lenses were better. He actually seemed very biased AGAINST Olympus and I'm not sure why.

$$$ :-)
 03/20/2012 10:42:33 AM · #20
Originally posted by GinaRothfels:
Originally posted by mike_311:
[i]Advantages of Image Stabilized lenses

A second, and undeniable, advantage of image stabilized lenses is that not only do they stabilize the image on the sensor, they also stabilize the image in the viewfinder too. This leads to a better user experience and allows the photographer to chose a moment to release the shutter when image movement appears to be at a minimum.



And according to the preview on the Olympus OM-D E-M5 a half press of the shutter button will give that advantage even with a stabilized body. And, as one can put Panasonic lenses (some of which are stabilized) on an Olympus micro four thirds body, I suppose that camera really is offering the best of both worlds.

Thanks for a very comprehensive answer.


Gina, I want to make sure I understand what you're saying about a Panasonic lens with built in IS on an Olympus body. The Panasonic lens should work fine but I'd be surprised if the lens IS worked. I think it would just default to the Olympus body IS system. Most likely there would be problems if both ran at the same time.
 03/20/2012 11:43:58 AM · #21
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by GinaRothfels:
... a salesman at a shop which doesn't stock Olympus said stabilized lenses were better. He actually seemed very biased AGAINST Olympus and I'm not sure why.

$$$ :-)


I thought it might be that, but there does seem to be some benefit to stabilized lenses. One thing I do know is that my first digital camera (about 10 years ago) was an Olympus, and when it went wrong while still under guarantee, Olympus refused to repair it and wanted to replace it with a newer model which I didn't want. I won't go into the whole story, but since then most of the shops here have stopped stocking Olympus and Panasonic. That makes me a bit nervous, but those are the only mirrorless cameras I'm really interested in.
 03/20/2012 12:05:15 PM · #22
I don't think i saw this mentioned, but I think having the IS on the lens makes more sense from a theoretical point of view. Imagine the camera as a tube anchored at one end (that's the body where you are holding it. It's not perfectly anchored since your hands can move, but it's more fixed than the other end). The further down that tube the gyro goes, the better it is able to stabilize the unfixed end.

I may totally misunderstand how in-camera stabilization works though and it may work off a totally different principle.
 03/20/2012 12:05:48 PM · #23
Originally posted by insteps:
Originally posted by GinaRothfels:
Originally posted by mike_311:
[i]Advantages of Image Stabilized lenses

A second, and undeniable, advantage of image stabilized lenses is that not only do they stabilize the image on the sensor, they also stabilize the image in the viewfinder too. This leads to a better user experience and allows the photographer to chose a moment to release the shutter when image movement appears to be at a minimum.



And according to the preview on the Olympus OM-D E-M5 a half press of the shutter button will give that advantage even with a stabilized body. And, as one can put Panasonic lenses (some of which are stabilized) on an Olympus micro four thirds body, I suppose that camera really is offering the best of both worlds.

Thanks for a very comprehensive answer.


Gina, I want to make sure I understand what you're saying about a Panasonic lens with built in IS on an Olympus body. The Panasonic lens should work fine but I'd be surprised if the lens IS worked. I think it would just default to the Olympus body IS system. Most likely there would be problems if both ran at the same time.


I was assuming that one could use the lens stabilization if the stabilizer in the body was switched off. Maybe I'm wrong.
 03/20/2012 12:10:54 PM · #24
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't think i saw this mentioned, but I think having the IS on the lens makes more sense from a theoretical point of view. Imagine the camera as a tube anchored at one end (that's the body where you are holding it. It's not perfectly anchored since your hands can move, but it's more fixed than the other end). The further down that tube the gyro goes, the better it is able to stabilize the unfixed end.

I may totally misunderstand how in-camera stabilization works though and it may work off a totally different principle.


that point was sort of brought up in the article i linked. the stabilization would have to be different for every lens, long lenses would require more movement than a wide angle. the camera body would have to know what lens was attached in order to move the sensor properly.

its seems much easier from a lens making standpoint to include it in the lens since you can tailor the IS to the lens as opposed to having a catch all solution in the body itself. how does that in body IS handle newer lenses, does it require a firmware update or is it as "easy" as just knowing the focal length attached?

Message edited by author 2012-03-20 12:11:56.
 03/20/2012 12:34:48 PM · #25
Originally posted by GinaRothfels:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by GinaRothfels:
... a salesman at a shop which doesn't stock Olympus said stabilized lenses were better. He actually seemed very biased AGAINST Olympus and I'm not sure why.

$$$ :-)


I thought it might be that, but there does seem to be some benefit to stabilized lenses. One thing I do know is that my first digital camera (about 10 years ago) was an Olympus, and when it went wrong while still under guarantee, Olympus refused to repair it and wanted to replace it with a newer model which I didn't want. I won't go into the whole story, but since then most of the shops here have stopped stocking Olympus and Panasonic. That makes me a bit nervous, but those are the only mirrorless cameras I'm really interested in.

He-he. What I meant by $$$ was the salesman can't make any commission off an item they don't have to sell. :-) Therefore, steering you to something they do stock.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 11/03/2025 04:18:50 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 11/03/2025 04:18:50 PM EST.