Lens stabilization vs Camera stabilization

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Al Clark, Nov 30, 2006.

  1. Al Clark

    Dan Sullivan Guest

    Most people will only have an 18-55 and a 55-200, which would both be
    fine for an in camera IS.
    Chances are if the in cam IS fails, you'll just have a regular camera
    till it's fixed.
    Internal IS = about $70... and will get less expensive as time goes by.
    Eventually it will be a "must have" feature in all DSLRs.

    Just wait!
    Dan Sullivan, Dec 6, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Dan Sullivan wrote:
    I think you are right, but the arguments I have seen suggest that the lens
    is a better place...

    David J Taylor, Dec 6, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Al Clark

    Dan Sullivan Guest

    If internal lens IS is a saleable/better feature (and it is), you can
    bet it will continue to be available... and continue to GROW!

    Five years from now we'll all be laughing at the dinosaur crap that's
    out today.

    That's the way it is and that's the way it will be.

    Fromage, Dan
    Dan Sullivan, Dec 6, 2006
  4. Al Clark

    eawckyegcy Guest

    If your engineering acumen is any indication of your ability to predict
    the future, it's time to start shorting Pentax.
    eawckyegcy, Dec 6, 2006
  5. Al Clark

    Dan Sullivan Guest

    Did I say I'm an engineer?

    Please explain your post... and add a few of your predictions.
    Dan Sullivan, Dec 6, 2006
  6. Al Clark

    eawckyegcy Guest

    My sincere apologies, Mr. Sullivan: I stupidly confused your rant with
    that of this "jeremy" dingbat. I still think you are woefully wrong,
    but at least you haven't uttered total bullshit while stating your
    eawckyegcy, Dec 6, 2006
  7. Al Clark

    Dan Sullivan Guest

    What am I "woefully wrong" about?
    Dan Sullivan, Dec 6, 2006
  8. Al Clark

    jeremy Guest

    You are "woefully wrong" if you believe that he is not just a troll. :)
    jeremy, Dec 6, 2006
  9. Al Clark

    ASAAR Guest

    It probably is, but few settle for the best if lesser choices are
    good enough and the price is right. If Canon's 5D was suddenly put
    on sale for the same price as their 400D, many owners of Canon's
    budget DSLRs would immediately go to extraordinary lengths to get a
    5D, since the 5D has such a superior sensor. But with costs such as
    they are, most owners of Canon's budget DSLRs are quite happy with
    what they have, because those DSLRs are so much better than P&S
    cameras, and they're "good enough". You could make the same
    argument for IS design. The in-lens design might be a little
    better, but there's a cost-benefit ratio to consider, and if the
    in-camera design is "good enough" and saves a lens collector enough
    money, getting camera with IS built-in can be a no-brainer. The
    money saved on not paying the IS premium for a couple of expensive
    IS lenses could easily pay for a backup camera body or another lens.

    Working pros that might really need the benefits that the most
    expensive solutions provide will probably stick with Canon and Nikon
    lenses, but their IS/VR solution is harder to justify for most other
    people. Some will happily pay for it even if the additional benefit
    they provide is not very great. Others will choose a different,
    more economical route, and will be just as happy. Many Canon and
    Nikon owners don't invest in IS and VR glass for all of their
    lenses, but if the premium per lens amounted to only $50, they
    probably would. Ask yourself this. Would owners of P&S cameras
    having sensor driven IS be willing to have paid $300 or $400 more if
    their camera's IS was built into the lens? Or perhaps a better
    question would be, would the manufacturer's of P&S cameras using
    lens based IS have dared to charge such a high premium? I don't
    think so. What I do think is that Canon and Nikon can get away with
    such a high premium because the lenses are so much more expensive to
    start with, so adding the IS/VR to the lenses raises the prices by a
    much smaller percentage of the total cost.
    ASAAR, Dec 6, 2006
  10. Al Clark

    Skip Guest

    Well, if you count each body I've had my 28-135 IS on as an additional $70,
    that would be $420, or about what the lens itself cost. And none of the IS
    would be as effective as the IS on the 70-200 f2.8L IS.
    Skip, Dec 7, 2006
  11. Yes, "good enough" is a principle I often use. I do wonder why some
    people pay so much for some cameras - perhaps they simply can and have a
    different scale of monetary values to me. Of course full-frame justifies
    a premium.
    I think you have a good point there. As you know, I have two cameras both
    with lens-based IS which perform very well, and yet cost about the same as
    sensor-base IS cameras. Indeed, I bought a sensor-based IS camera once
    (Minolta A2), but rejected it for various reasons (not the IS not shown as
    working at longer exposures....).

    David J Taylor, Dec 7, 2006
  12. Al Clark

    VX Guest

    The Konica-Minolta 7D's AntiShake is the in-camera image stabilisation system
    used by Sony, who bought up K-M, and enhanced AS and now call it Super Steady
    Shot or something similar... I'm still using the 7D. On the 7D you can use
    any lens that you can mount onto the camera and the AntiShake will work- and
    be effective. I've used old M42 lenses, including a Biotar that is very old
    by modern standards and several other oddities. AS seems to work well with
    any lens that will mount on the camera. The longest I've tried so far is the
    Tamron 500mm mirror lens. Obviously in such cases the camera doesn't know
    what lens is on it- so I suppose it just looks at the degree of shake and
    tries to compensate for it. Seems very effective.
    VX, Dec 7, 2006
  13. Al Clark

    Dan Sullivan Guest

    Eventually the cost will come down even more..

    But you forget the ICIS also works on all the lenses you use that don't have

    All those sharper/better pictures have to be worth something....correct?
    Dan Sullivan, Dec 7, 2006
  14. Al Clark

    jeremy Guest

    And, if future camera bodies incorporate improved IS, those improvements
    will be transferred to all the images produced by all of one's lenses. IS
    is still a developing feature and we should expect to see improved
    performance as time goes on.
    jeremy, Dec 7, 2006
  15. Al Clark

    Dan Sullivan Guest

    Is software IS around the corner?

    Think about that!!!
    Dan Sullivan, Dec 7, 2006
  16. I already have software IS in my Nikon Coolpix 8400.

    David J Taylor, Dec 7, 2006
  17. "David J Taylor"
    Software IS for still images is impossible.
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=, Dec 7, 2006
  18. Al Clark

    Aaron Guest

    That's a really good point, eawckyegcy; with in-camera IS on a true
    SLR, you will never be able to look through the eyepiece and SEE how
    much stabilization you're getting, unless the system magically jiggles
    the mirror at the same time it's jiggling the sensor. What this seems
    like, to me, is a needlessly complex solution that makes your camera
    body all the more vulnerable to breakage. I don't really want anything
    inside of my camera jiggling around on motors.

    Image stabilization in general is delicious black magic, and it's a
    wonder it works at all. I am certain that in-camera IS has its place
    (remember Steady Shot?), and Canon has already introduced this in a
    few P&S cameras. In my opinion, in-camera IS only has its place in the
    consumer and lower end of the pro-am market. No professional will ever
    want some magical motors jiggling things around inside their camera
    that they can't see with their own eyes.

    If you want to play around with half-assed in-camera IS, buy a
    half-assed consumer camera. Professional-grade equipment, yielding the
    best results that current technology can offer, will always cost a
    premium and demand savvy users that understand how to make the best
    use of it. You cannot *possibly* compare a 2-stop in-camera IS system
    with (e.g.) Canon's 3-4-stop second-generation IS.

    Just to be absolutely certain that jeremy understands what I'm saying,
    I think that both in-camera and in-lens stabilization systems will
    grow in abundance, but that their applications are fundamentally
    divided into separate areas of the marketplace.
    Aaron, Dec 7, 2006
  19. Not on CSI!

    I agree it's impossible now. And will never sub. for correct image
    capturing, but some day we'll see software than can do a passable job of
    salvaging some photos with camera shake.
    John McWilliams, Dec 7, 2006
  20. I suppose if the camera shake during the exposure was recorded, the
    exact shake pattern could be used with a deconvolution algorithm to
    give better results than guessing the shake would. I still don't
    think it would replace a stable capture in the first place.
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=, Dec 7, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.