Image Stabilization: Concerning cameras with interchangeable lenses. Is it better to have the Image Stabilization built into the lens or as an integral function of the camera body?

rayford2 Loc: New Bethlehem, PA

Concerning cameras with interchangeable lenses.
Is it better to have the Image Stabilization built into the lens or as an integral function of the camera body?

nyweb2001

If you already own the camera, you don't have a choice. My Canon Rebel doesn't have IS built into the body...it's contained in the lenses. I have a few lenses without IS, I just steady the camera or use a tripod. I think IS or VR is just a LITTLE overrated.....it's there to help with MINOR camera shake. It won't take care of bad shots, nor will it do much in an earthquake.

GTinSoCal Loc: Palmdale, CA

nyweb2001 wrote:

If you already own the camera, you don't have a choice. My Canon Rebel doesn't have IS built into the body...it's contained in the lenses. I have a few lenses without IS, I just steady the camera or use a tripod. I think IS or VR is just a LITTLE overrated.....it's there to help with MINOR camera shake. It won't take care of bad shots, nor will it do much in an earthquake.

:lol:
earthquake, I hadn't heard that one before! :-)

It is definitely one of the nice to haves, but not a deal breaker.
I use it most of the time, but that is because I really like my coffee...

As far as which is better, lens IS is better, why?
Because that's what I have.
If I had a body with IS, THAT would be better :D

GT

rayford2 Loc: New Bethlehem, PA

Wouldn't it be more economically feasable to buy a camera body with an integral I.S. than have to pay for I.S. in each lens you buy?

nyweb2001

I think we're placing too much importance on stabilization.It's a relatively new technology compared to the amount of years camera's have been in existence. What did folks do BEFORE IS ? They kept still !

1eyedjack

My wife sure gets good use of the stabilizer in her camera.
She used to take "soft or slightly blurry" photos with her
old camera, now they are pretty clear shots..

rayford2 Loc: New Bethlehem, PA

nyweb2001 wrote:

I think we're placing too much importance on stabilization.It's a relatively new technology compared to the amount of years camera's have been in existence. What did folks do BEFORE IS ? They kept still !

You're absolutely right in all regards. However even though I.S. may be in it's infancy I feel the day is coming when I.S. will become a standard feature on most cameras and lenses. That's why I asked the question.

Nikon_DonB Loc: Chicago

I am by no means any kind of authority, but as it appears to me the more expensive(and larger) cameras have the VR or IS(on non-Nikon)built into the camera body. While the more compact DSLR's have it in the lens to save space in the body.

chapjohn Loc: Tigard, Oregon

One example is Sony that has built IS into the camera. The lenses cost less, but good lenses are still a lot. I keep IS off when using a tripod or monopod to avoid unclear pictures. IS or VR in the lens or in the camera will keep looking for what to stabilize when mounted on a stable platform and this will cause fuzzyness in the picture.

flshutterbug Loc: FloriDUH

Both systems have advantages; the principle one for in-camera is that it makes any lens "stabilized" and new lenses cheaper to build. The main one for in-lens, if you believe the testers and reviewers, is that to the extent it works at all it works better in lens, especially at longer focal lengths . . .

Jhouse341 Loc: Indianapolis In

I agree with Pete. I use my 18x270 lens at times with the IS on n many times my pictures r more blurr than when it's off! In the older days you didn't need it n now I still think its a "money" thing with camera company's. And when in low lighting it's worst, always trying to get a grip on something where you are shooting. Personally I can do without the IS feature, my pics r always better without it on.

jimberton Loc: Michigan's Upper Peninsula

my favorite lens is my 24-70mm L 2.8........doesn't have stabilization, always tack sharp images.

the secret is to learn how to use shutter speed and adjust accordingly. as long as i stay above 1/60...tack sharp images. learning how to use shutter speed wasn't that easy for me...but once i got it....i got it. stubborn hard head, half italian, half irish..i am as hard headed as they come.

i have a couple of other lens that have image stabilization and i don't click the switch on. i have the 70-200m 2.8L with IS and i also have the 17-85mm4.0 with IS....all the rest of my prime lenses do not have IS.

dwightdills Loc: Charlotte, Tn.

I had the Doctor install one of those in me cause I like my coffee too.

GTinSoCal wrote:

quote=nyweb2001 If you already own the camera, yo... (show quote)

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Is shake necessary? For some it really is, they have nerve damage and tend to vibrate. Other situations, like riding in a car and taking thru a window, yep. My Panasonic TZ-3 has double shake control, lens and sensor, Panasonic had a great demo on line.

Sony alpha series has shake in body, thus Minolta lenses from 1985 on will mount on the body and have shake and focus function. The advantage? Millions of Minolta AF lenses in the market at a reasonable price. These lenses work as tho made for the modern digital single lens reflex Sony cameras.

See ChapJohn above. Not sure if I agree or disagree that the camera keeps looking for shake when there is none and blurs. Generally such systems are damped and do not continue to oscillate seeking. Good tech question to ask Sony.

overthemoon Loc: Wisconsin

I like my IS lenses when I am in the boundary waters or hiking its a plus. I can't always have my tripod with me so the IS is a nice feature to have and I have been able to take awesome photos without a tripod at a shutter speed of 20. I own a canon 50D.