| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/20/2012 12:37:47 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by GinaRothfels:
I was assuming that one could use the lens stabilization if the stabilizer in the body was switched off. Maybe I'm wrong. |
You can do that with the Sony cameras I've owned. If you have a lens with IS (I have one Sigma lens with IS) then you can use either one. |
|
|
|
03/20/2012 12:45:54 PM · #27 |
So I take it Canon and Nikon haven't figured out how to do in-camera stabilization yet? 
I think this debate is similar to the brand wars that rage around the various forums. My system is better than yours - blah, blah, blah - argue, argue, argue. Really quite entertaining!
FWIW, I've been quite satisfied over the years with the Sony in-body IS (anti-shake) system and not having to spend extra money on IS for every lens - plus I can use any older lens (M42's, Lensbaby, etc...) and still benefit.
I've seen some testing on the stops gained in prior reviews (for not only Sony, but other brands as well - Pentax, etc...). I'd think there has to be some testing / comparisons out there for this discussion as well (in-camera versus lens IS). Actually, thought I'd seen a write-up somewhere...I'll have to try and find it now. :-) |
|
|
|
03/20/2012 12:47:42 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
So I take it Canon and Nikon haven't figured out how to do in-camera stabilization yet? |
Or maybe they just haven't figured out how to do it without infringing someone's patent ... |
|
|
|
03/20/2012 12:59:41 PM · #29 |
I sent  scarbrd a PM to ask him about this as he uses an Olympus body with both Olympus and Panasonic lenses. He replied in the Micro Four Thirds thread, as follows:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
here's my take on the in-body vs in-lens stabilization:
With the current technology, in-lens stabilization will give you about 1 stop more than in-body, all things being equal. That may change with the new camera from Olympus. The OM-D image stabilization is reported to be very very good.
I still prefer the in-body stabilization because you pay for the IS once, not every time you buy a lens. This makes for less expensive native lenses and provides stabilization on all lenses mounted on the camera. This is particularly advantageous in the m4/3 arena with its ability to use almost any legacy lens.
That said, I also think IS is overrated. It's nice for low light situations to use a lower ISO and such, but it does not replace fast lenses for action or sports photography.
I shoot Olympus and do own a few Panasonic lenses, but none of them have IS. From what I've read, you can use the IS on the lens or on the camera, but not both at the same time. |
|
|
|
|
03/20/2012 01:10:11 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
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. |
I realised that was what you meant :) But the limited availability of Olympus here does make me wonder why so few shops stock them. I don't think it's a problem with the cameras, but I'm not sure how reliable the agents are. |
|
|
|
03/20/2012 01:17:04 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
From what I've read, you can use the IS on the lens or on the camera, but not both at the same time. |
Using both at the same time might let you create some interesting effecta, especially if you intentionally make the camera unsteady ... ;-) |
|
|
|
03/20/2012 02:31:42 PM · #32 |
|
|
|
03/20/2012 02:32:15 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
From what I've read, you can use the IS on the lens or on the camera, but not both at the same time. |
Using both at the same time might let you create some interesting effecta, especially if you intentionally make the camera unsteady ... ;-) |
or it could rip open the fabric of space-time, exposing us to some alternate dimension where we could get annihilated by extra dimensional beings.
kind of like dividing by zero. |
|
|
|
03/20/2012 03:39:07 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
or it could rip open the fabric of space-time .... |
 |
|
|
|
03/20/2012 09:30:14 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
So I take it Canon and Nikon haven't figured out how to do in-camera stabilization yet? |
This is an interesting question, but the argument that in body is preferred from a consumer standpoint (only buying it once) quickly shows us that there is no reason Nikon or Canon would ever CARE to pursue it, separate from the fact that both makers (and many others) have openly stated that lens IS works more effectively.
I don't think they have any incentive to pursue it, since they can simply continue to roll out new versions of the lenses with improved IS/VR. Another thing to consider, from a photographer/consumer standpoint, is that while these new lenses are very expensive, they also provide leverage on the market for the older lenses, which drop in value. It also means you can get upgrades in optic technology as new products appear, such as new coatings and improved vignetting, which often come about during the "update" process of a given lens.
In any case, I think both work remarkably well, though each does have their quirks, but hardly a reason to go for one marque over another. |
|
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: 11/04/2025 04:28:17 AM EST.
