Image Stabilization vs Lens prices (Page 2): What GREAT advice ... not. Just today I hadda get some sharp shots where no tripod was available, and there was absolutely no way to stand...

User ID

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.

What GREAT advice ... not.

Just today I hadda get some sharp shots
where no tripod was available, and there
was absolutely no way to stand in a pose
such as you describe. Actually wound up
in a precarious sorta "squat-crouch" that
was very uncomfortable and unsteady. I
used Dual IS, so therefor I cannot claim
lens-IS or Body-IS is better, cuz I double
teamed them ... and acoarst got a sharp
shot despite inability to hold very steady.

.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

User ID wrote:

`

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.

.

Actually, from what I am seeing, (see my post above with specific details), it's not that straightforward, at least not in every case. In the case of Nikon, which has been my chosen brand for 14 years (and remains so), available information seems to indicate that the pricing structure for the new MILC line is about 10-15% higher than essentially equivalent DSLR items.

There is nothing inherently sinister about that, of course. But it is certainly worth noting, especially in cases like the one I referenced, where the additional cost of in-lens VR is not trivial.

User ID

`

larryepage wrote:

br Actually, from what I am seeing, (see my post... (show quote)

Yes ! No disagreement. I just find that examples
such as Sigma, where the very same lens comes
in various mounts, with and without OIS, makes
a fine example of how OIS cannot justify huuuge
price differences. So acoarst I agree with anyone
saying that they feel screwed over when they've
seen unreasonable surcharges for OIS.

.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

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?

Some of the best quality and most expensive lenses available today never had image stabilization. Don't expect lenses without it to become cheaper as a result of IBIS.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

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?

I doubt you will see any savings on newer lenses for mirrorless camera's. I have never know a camera manufacture that willingly and gladly pass on savings to consumers.

Shoeless_Photographer Loc: Lexington

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!

I wish I had hands that stable. Even with the proper technique, some of us still need IS.

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

User ID wrote:

`

Yes ! No disagreement. I just find that examples
such as Sigma, where the very same lens comes
in various mounts, with and without OIS, makes
a fine example of how OIS cannot justify huuuge
price differences. So acoarst I agree with anyone
saying that they feel screwed over when they've
seen unreasonable surcharges for OIS.

.

I notice that you often use the word...'acoarst'. Is that the same meaning as...of course? Only noticed recently used by USA posters. The following poster after you, used …. of course… in his/her post. Never seen 'acoarst' used in UK posters writings.

johnbhome2 Loc: Wyoming, Michigan

Jakebrake wrote:

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.

I also suffer from tremors in my hands. My biggest improvement in keepers this past year was the purchase of a monopod which I have used whether sitting down or walking about. A side benefit is the monopod also serves as a walking stick while I am out and about.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Good question, but after spending all that money on R&D, I suspect the manufacturers will want to get some of that money back. Hopefully, lenses designed for in-camera stabilization exclusively, will not have the added cost of lens stabilization. If a lens is made for both stabilized and non-stabilized cameras, I suspect the lens will continue to have IS.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Jakebrake wrote:

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.

If it wasn't necessary then it wouldn't be there.
I like it too and consider myself quite good at holding steady including as a shooter.

Bill_de Loc: US

In a free market system;

"Charge What the Market Will Bear" is often the mantra. Competition is the ingredient that makes it work.

For everyone who thinks companies should lower prices so they can afford something, there are at least two people who worked hard enough so that they can. Otherwise the price would be forced down.

---

---

mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma

Having it in camera gives you the opportunity to shoot with a wider variety of lenses than might otherwise be the case and still hand hold. It also works with lenses that have stabilization. I personally hate lugging around a tripod unless I absolutely have to. I don’t think the mfrs will stop making IS lenses.

DaveC Loc: Illinois

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.

Possibly not for you. But in school I could have been the poster boy for the 90 pound weakling, age, (I am 84,) has not improved my strength. (BTW, I started photography in high school.) On top of that I have Essenial Tremor, my hands shake just when they are not suppose to. I.S. is an absolute necessity for me. And yes, I have tripods and monopods galore. But they are not always feasible for my type of photography. Plus they are extra weight. But I am saving for a Nikon Z, hopefully that may minimize my problems.

NCMtnMan Loc: N. Fork New River, Ashe Co., NC

Manufacturers talk in terms of VR saving you an f-stop or two, but seldom mention other reasons. So, I would surmise from that they think of it more in a hand held difficult lighting condition for the setting you need for the shot you want.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

From a marketing standpoint. if canon and nikon offered IBIS in their nex generation of upgrade they would be able to market lens models priced inbetween IS and non IS pricing. It would be cost effective not to run both iterations of lenses, And reduce the cost of manufacturing both versions They could raise the costs of the new bodies, for those improvements