Image stabilisation - In body or in lens?

[taekimon]

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?

 

[grantyale]

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

 

[taekimon]

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?

 

[giantcanopy]

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

 

[adiknaim]

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...

 

[gymak90]

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.

 

[Squid]

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/image-stabilization-special-stop-the-shake.html
{see graphs on side bar}

 

[Octarine]

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

 

[giantcanopy]

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

 

[Redsun]

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

thats the ultimate stabilizer :bsmilie:

 

[windwaver]

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

 

[mummum]

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.

 

[lifepursuer]

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 :sweat:

 

[egnaro]

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.

 

[synapseman]

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.

 

[synapseman]

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 :sweat:

Maybe some sort of active gyroscope, or steadycams like those used in videography. Handheld night shots while running, anyone? :think: