Image Stabilization vs Lens prices: In reading about the rowing number of new mirrorless cameras there seems to be a move by some mfgrs to "in-camera-IS." If this is the case is there...

andymac

In reading about the rowing number of new mirrorless cameras there seems to be a move by some mfgrs to "in-camera-IS." If this is the case is there likely and positive (really negative) impact on lens cost that no longer have IS systems included? Has anyone seen and discussion to this?

Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

First, is image stabilization really necessary. I am a FIRM believer in the technique of properly holding one's camera. Proper technique avoids a great deal of camera shake. You may not need to spend more money for a state of the art lens!
Just to recap, hold the camera close, support the camera and lens, keep one foot in from of the other and at an angle.

Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

Sorry I meant front of the other. Damn auto-correct

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, Colorado

Scruples wrote:

First, is image stabilization really necessary. I am a FIRM believer in the technique of properly holding one's camera. Proper technique avoids a great deal of camera shake. You may not need to spend more money for a state of the art lens!
Just to recap, hold the camera close, support the camera and lens, keep one foot in from of the other and at an angle.

That's good advice for some, however for me, being 72 and have developed tremors in my hands I couldn't pursue my hobby, amateur photography without IS lenses.

BassmanBruce Loc: Middle of the Mitten

This sort of goes along the lines of your query, I have a small box full of Minolta maxxum lenses that I use on Sony cameras giving me full auto functionality with stabilization. The lenses can often be bought for a song and I am very happy with much of the results.

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

andymac wrote:

In reading about the rowing number of new mirrorless cameras there seems to be a move by some mfgrs to "in-camera-IS." If this is the case is there likely and positive (really negative) impact on lens cost that no longer have IS systems included? Has anyone seen and discussion to this?

Andy - I don’t see manufacturers raising prices of non-IS lenses after announcing new IS-enhanced camera bodies. I understand your question, but I think camera manufacturers are aware the market is soft right now and are smart enough not to rock the boat. For the “purists”, you can still buy top quality lenses and turn the IS off on the lens and on the camera. Until maybe they need the feature some day.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Scruples wrote:

First, is image stabilization really necessary. I am a FIRM believer in the technique of properly holding one's camera. Proper technique avoids a great deal of camera shake. You may not need to spend more money for a state of the art lens!
Just to recap, hold the camera close, support the camera and lens, keep one foot in from of the other and at an angle.

I have always used "good technique", but I really value the IBIS provided by all modern Pentax cameras for all lenses, even the ones that date back to a time when people hadn't thought about IS. I have no reason to lug a tripod around with me anymore and can still reliably shoot at lower shutter speeds than even "good technique" made available to me.

HardworkingGal

Scruples wrote:

First, is image stabilization really necessary. I am a FIRM believer in the technique of properly holding one's camera. Proper technique avoids a great deal of camera shake. You may not need to spend more money for a state of the art lens!
Just to recap, hold the camera close, support the camera and lens, keep one foot in from of the other and at an angle.

Being a newbie I got a telephoto lense in my kit w/o stabilization and tried using it holding it proper and was still getting motion....fast forward to my trip last week when I got an opportunity to work with a National Geographic photographer (just pure lucky!) and he pointed out that settings make a world of difference and assisted me in learning settings that have now allowed me to take wonderful pics with my "w/o stab kit lens"! Though I can't wait 'til I save my pennies and buy a better lens (saving some cost by getting w/o stab) I found faster shutter speed is my friend!

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I believe the conventional wisdom is that IBIS is more effective for wide to standard range FLs, while in-lens IS is more effective for telephoto lenses, especially long FLs, so there may be use for both technologies depending on the application.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

rjaywallace wrote:

Andy - I don’t see manufacturers raising prices of non-IS lenses after announcing new IS-enhanced camera bodies. I understand your question, but I think camera manufacturers are aware the market is soft right now and are smart enough not to rock the boat. For the “purists”, you can still buy top quality lenses and turn the IS off on the lens and on the camera. Until maybe they need the feature some day.

It would seem to me, that if in body stabilization is not available, the longr the focal length the more stabilization is necessary. But if you are blessed with rock stable hands it is not nc essary.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

andymac wrote:

In reading about the rowing number of new mirrorless cameras there seems to be a move by some mfgrs to "in-camera-IS." If this is the case is there likely and positive (really negative) impact on lens cost that no longer have IS systems included? Has anyone seen and discussion to this?

The Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8 VR is priced at $2399.95 and is on sale for $2199.95 right now.
The non-VR version of this lens is 1799.95, on sale for $1699.95.

The new Z 24-70mm f2.8 (IBIS) is priced at $2299.95

I don't see this as a favorable impact on lens cost to the consumer.

ken_stern Loc: Yorba Linda, Ca

Holding the camera steady along with knowing how to consistently hold it steady is of paramount importance --- However
Hand holding while tracking an old War Bird doing 350 to 400 mph across the sky with a 560 mm lens using a shutter speed of 1/100 so you can capture prop blur -- Well that's when you really appreciate a lens with Image Stabilization -- Buying the same lens without IS for less would for me be useless

Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

Let me write, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE!
You can buy a camera rig so that you hold the camera with both hands. It will also hold a shutter release to reduce the camera shake

SEMPER FI --- OOO RAH

Happy Shooting

Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

I understand, my fellow photog. Thanks for clarifying that and bringing it into focus. With a slower shutter you definitely risk blur.

User ID

`

andymac wrote:

In reading about the rowing number of new mirrorless
cameras there seems to be a move by some mfgrs to
"in-camera-IS." If this is the case is there likely and
positive (really negative) impact on lens cost that no
longer have IS systems included? Has anyone seen
and discussion to this?

In a few instances you can buy the same identical
lens with and without in-lens IS, and the difference
in price is modest, such as $650 vs $725. Doesn't
require discussion. The prices are publicly posted.

Sometimes there's NO difference with and without
optical IS. I just looked up a Sigma 17-50/2.8 that
is sold with various mounts, all for $370. Optical IS
is included for cameras lacking IBIS, and is deleted
for cameras that provide IS. Same price for all :-)

.