Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Image stabilisation - In body or in lens?

  1. #1

    Default Image stabilisation - In body or in lens?

    Thinking of going into dslrs. Been doing alot of reading up and seems like now its between Canon and Pentax.
    But first, i would like to find out, which form of image stabilisation suppose to be better? The in body kind like in Pentax dSLRs or those in lenses like for Canon?

  2. #2

    Default Re: Image stabilisation - In body or in lens?

    Personally I like to have in-body for wide-angles and in-lens for telephotos.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Image stabilisation - In body or in lens?

    well unless everyone can own 2 dSLRs, otherwise isit even possible to have both in body and on lens image stabilisation??

    maybe u wanna discuss why in body for wide angle and on lens for tele?

  4. #4
    Senior Member giantcanopy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    SG
    Posts
    6,232

    Default Re: Image stabilisation - In body or in lens?

    There have been previous posts. The on lens stabilisation on longer focal lengths are more effective. Of course having built in stabilisation means u virtually get the benefit all across without incurring additional premium for the function on the lens.

    Ryan

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Choa Chu Kang
    Posts
    440

    Default Re: Image stabilisation - In body or in lens?

    either one is good...

    In-body = cheaper in the long run most probably
    In-lens = supposedly more accurate in compensation and longer focal lengths

    however, i feel that we should work on basic holding technique the best.. if we don't have good handling, stabilisation oso nt much use...
    Pentax K100D Super

  6. #6
    Member gymak90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The Far North
    Posts
    1,448

    Default Re: Image stabilisation - In body or in lens?

    Quote Originally Posted by taekimon View Post
    well unless everyone can own 2 dSLRs, otherwise isit even possible to have both in body and on lens image stabilisation??
    No it is possible without having 2 dslrs.
    Say you have an Sony body with sensor stablisation. Then fit with a lens like Sigma 150-500mm OS.
    But in reality, you can't use 2 stabilisations at the same time. So no point.
    The best things in life are free.

  7. #7

    Default Additional image stabilisation of interest to you

    These are the links to articles on the web about the topic you mentioned. You may check them out and make your conclusion from them.

    http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1187901361.html
    {see last graph in the article}

    http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4615...the-shake.html
    {see graphs on side bar}

  8. #8
    Moderator Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pasir Ris
    Posts
    12,392

    Default Re: Image stabilisation - In body or in lens?

    Last but not least there is a stabilization out of body and out of lens: a good tripod

  9. #9
    Senior Member giantcanopy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    SG
    Posts
    6,232

    Default Re: Image stabilisation - In body or in lens?

    Quote Originally Posted by Octarine View Post
    Last but not least there is a stabilization out of body and out of lens: a good tripod
    There is another stabilisation outside : http://www.ken-lab.com/

    Ryan

  10. #10
    Member/Tangshooter Redsun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    7,931

    Default Re: Image stabilisation - In body or in lens?

    Quote Originally Posted by Octarine View Post
    Last but not least there is a stabilization out of body and out of lens: a good tripod
    thats the ultimate stabilizer

  11. #11

    Default Re: Image stabilisation - In body or in lens?

    Quote Originally Posted by taekimon View Post
    Thinking of going into dslrs. Been doing alot of reading up and seems like now its between Canon and Pentax.
    But first, i would like to find out, which form of image stabilisation suppose to be better? The in body kind like in Pentax dSLRs or those in lenses like for Canon?
    You can 'see' the stablization if it's in the lens while in-body IS cannot 'see'. Having said that, having the IS in yourself is the best bet

  12. #12

    Default Re: Image stabilisation - In body or in lens?

    Quote Originally Posted by taekimon View Post
    Thinking of going into dslrs. Been doing alot of reading up and seems like now its between Canon and Pentax.
    But first, i would like to find out, which form of image stabilisation suppose to be better? The in body kind like in Pentax dSLRs or those in lenses like for Canon?
    To me...

    The benefit of having IS in-body is the cost advantage IF you are using third party lens. Example the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is significantly much cheaper compared to Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens. Talking bout the focal length and aperture only.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Western Singapore
    Posts
    91

    Default Re: Image stabilisation - In body or in lens?

    i prefer stablisation in the lens as in shooting at long focal lengths requires precise focusing and aiming to get a sharp pic hence the in-len stablise would help greatly in situations like this. hopfully in the future we would have IS on both bodies and lens but most probably it will leave a big hole in our wallets

  14. #14
    Senior Member egnaro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Boon Lay, Singapore
    Posts
    2,989

    Default Re: Image stabilisation - In body or in lens?

    Quote Originally Posted by Octarine View Post
    Last but not least there is a stabilization out of body and out of lens: a good tripod
    you only get it half correct... a good tripod and a very good head.
    Life is like Photography, to improve, you have to keep shooting!

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    2,196

    Default Re: Image stabilisation - In body or in lens?

    From what I've read from independent reports, it seems that in-lens stabilisation is better than in-camera stabilisation. However, how many IS/VR lenses are you going to buy?

    While in-body stabilisation is not as good as in-lens stabilisation, it is by no means lousy. And when you consider that ANY lens you mount, it becomes stabilised, the eventual savings can be quite a big deal. Legacy lenses, current lenses, third-party, budget lens, hi-end lens, etc, etc. Personally, I also don't like the view of the stabilising effect of in-lens IS/VR - find it a bit disorientating.
    Sony Alpha system user. www.pbase.com/synapseman

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    2,196

    Default Re: Image stabilisation - In body or in lens?

    Quote Originally Posted by lifepursuer View Post
    i prefer stablisation in the lens as in shooting at long focal lengths requires precise focusing and aiming to get a sharp pic hence the in-len stablise would help greatly in situations like this. hopfully in the future we would have IS on both bodies and lens but most probably it will leave a big hole in our wallets
    Maybe some sort of active gyroscope, or steadycams like those used in videography. Handheld night shots while running, anyone?
    Sony Alpha system user. www.pbase.com/synapseman

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •