VR in lense or in body better?

[MachIII]

I am not sure which one is better. To have VR integrated in body sounds good (at least in pricing for lenses) but when i start to think more.... When a movement in camera, the major movement experienced will be at the lense. Hence, VR in lense would be more appropriate...

What if body and lense have VR? Will the mode cancel out each other?? This is just to resolve my curiosity.

Pros for VR in lense:
- better in Vibration Reduction than in body?

Cons for VR in lense:
- heavy price tag

Thank you very much.

[night86mare]

you just asked this in a section, where the company doesn't produce in-body stabilisation in dslrs..

no doubt what the answer is going to be..

[tkbonz]

Vr in lens better. Why? Cause when you activate the VR, you can actually see the stabilization when composing through the viewfinder. In-body VR will not allow you to do that unless you are in maybe say liveview?

[Reportage]

Originally Posted by MachIII I am not sure which one is better. To have VR integrated in body sounds good (at least in pricing for lenses) but when i start to think more.... When a movement in camera, the major movement experienced will be at the lense. Hence, VR in lense would be more appropriate... What if body and lense have VR? Will the mode cancel out each other?? This is just to resolve my curiosity. Pros for VR in lense: - better in Vibration Reduction than in body? Cons for VR in lense: - heavy price tag Thank you very much.

are you kidding..if Nikon adopts in-body VR then all the people who bought the VR-in-lens system will most likely be infuriated.

just hope there are more non-vr users as opposed to vr-users if nikon decides to try.

[earthling82]

Hi

I prefer in-camera VR.

Reasons
1. Cheaper lens and esp useful for use with old lens or high-end (zeiss)
2. In the long term, advances in tech will ensure in-cam VR will also catch up or outperform lens VR. After all, the sensor is in the body and the VR could correct within the body theoretically
3. Best is to have both and at cheaper price

[Reportage]

Originally Posted by earthling82 Hi I prefer in-camera VR. Reasons 1. Cheaper lens and esp useful for use with old lens or high-end (zeiss) 2. In the long term, advances in tech will ensure in-cam VR will also catch up or outperform lens VR. After all, the sensor is in the body and the VR could correct within the body theoretically 3. Best is to have both and at cheaper price

i believe the reasoning is..if lens VR fails, at most send in the lens for repair. If in body VR fails, the whole camera goes in for repair.

[erictan8888]

its a wish that will be hard to come true in canon or nikon...

[mnmohamed]

If this question was asked in Sony section, we would've heard a different set of arguments.

[giantcanopy]

The stabilisation for body is obvious. U get stabilisation across the lenses you mount, even those older ones, and you pay for the stabilisation once ( the camera body )

The disadvantages of VR is the advantage of in body stabilisation. However, a small optical shift by the gyroscope translates to a big movement in the image in the lens compared to the sensor shift, and from this reasoning, the longer telephoto lenses are better stabilised when the gyroscope is in the lens. And of course VF stabilisation.

Ryan

[Ryvaleus]

Originally Posted by Reportage i believe the reasoning is..if lens VR fails, at most send in the lens for repair. If in body VR fails, the whole camera goes in for repair.

If body VR fails, then it's time for an upgrade.

Seriously though, if having VR in body results in overall cheaper lenses, I'm all for it. Assuming there's not an obviously large gap in performance differences, that is.

[Squid]

There are some published information on this question. See Nikon's data and Popular Photography information at these links

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

http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4615...the-shake.html

[MashiMaro]

Originally Posted by MachIII I am not sure which one is better. ...

read Nikon official answer ..
Why is 'in-lens' VR superior to 'in-camera' VR?

[Ryvaleus]

Originally Posted by Squid There are some published information on this question. See Nikon's data and Popular Photography information at these links http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1187901361.html {see last graph in the article} http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4615...the-shake.html

Not that I have anything against Nikon, but I'd take any data that a company comes up with, with a large pinch of salt.

Having said that, the popphoto article does seem to support Nikon's claim. I think 2 stops or so ain't so bad. And I'm sure the technology can improve.. barring any serious physical limitations of course since I'm no expert on the inner workings of DSLRs (), by which point all your existing lenses will enjoy the benefit when you upgrade the body.

[lsisaxon]

Originally Posted by MachIII I am not sure which one is better. To have VR integrated in body sounds good (at least in pricing for lenses) but when i start to think more.... When a movement in camera, the major movement experienced will be at the lense. Hence, VR in lense would be more appropriate... What if body and lense have VR? Will the mode cancel out each other?? This is just to resolve my curiosity. Pros for VR in lense: - better in Vibration Reduction than in body? Cons for VR in lense: - heavy price tag Thank you very much.

Why do you think the leaders, ie Nikon and Canon have VR and IS in lenses but not in bodies? It's simply because the algorithm for the VR and the accelerometers can be optimized for the particular focal length.

As for the question on VR in both the lens and body, someone actually did try it using the Leica 14-50 with Mega OIS on a Olympus E510 with sensor IS. There's a video of a demonstration of both technologies at the bottom.

http://www.dslrtips.com/features/Sen...ti_shake.shtml

[powergoo]

I did buy a minolta 5D to test in body IS.
It's gd . but lens more effective.

Not true that sony lens cheaper, juz check their 80-200f2.8....more expensive than IS version....
Only if u used 3rd party lens than cheaper.

FYI, I no longer on sony system. switch back to canon.

Canon & nikon so much easier to b&s. sony wait long long...juz my 0.02 cents