Grumpy Loc: Hampshire, UK

Hi ,
Being a Nikon D7000 user and of advanced years I would quite like a Nikon DSLR with stabilisation in sensor. Nikon uses in lens VR at the moment I wonder why they do not consider in camera IR which would enable the use of some older lenses and even something like the 24-70 in all conditions. There must be a good reason for this? I hope all you members on the eastern seaboard of The States and Canada are managing to survive the terrible conditions.

JR1 Loc: Tavistock, Devon, UK

IN lens, why, if the lens packs up you send it away and use another if the in camera packs up you are stuffed.

hangman45 Loc: Hueytown Alabama

Cost prohibitive since they did not do it from the start they have too much money tied up in the VR lens and it would take a total redesign of their system. But the same goes for Pentax and Sony with their in camera stabilization they would have to totally redesign their whole system can not see either ever doing it.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Due to the vast differences in lens characteristics and sizes, it is much more effective to use VR in-lens. You have to make compromises to put VR in the body as in-body VR could never match a multitude of lenses properly and effectively.

elandel Loc: Milan, Italy

Agree. Theg,re too involved in their choices that'I think it's impossible to'change strategy.

pigpen

I also tend to think it's marketing. They can't charge a premium for IS lenses if the IS is in camera.

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

Sony has in-camera stabilization as well as lens stabilization on Sony lenses, thus when you use a non-IS lens the body takes over, when you use an IS lens the body bows out and lets the lens take over. The best of both worlds to assure that Minolta lenses work just dandy with IR always available on Sony bodies.

It would seem that Sony planned ahead while Nikon didn't. But Nikon gets to charge more for VR lenses for those who want that feature because it's not in the body. Maybe Nikon DID plan ahead for added profit from their VR lens buyers while Sony planned ahead for a wide range of inexpensive Minolta lenses available instead?

meatyore

I have never personally read that WHERE the IS resides makes a huge difference. Generally the stabilisation peaks at a gain of 2-3 f-stops, whether it resides in-camera, or in lens. The simple fact remains that when you pay for a camera with IS, you pay for it once; when you don't, you pay per lens, which is obviously going to cost money, and a more complex system for EACH lens. Add to that the fact that a percentage of the lenses you are likely to purchase for ANY camera are going to miss the IS feature, on occasion you are going to be 'stuck' with NO IS at'all.
When the IS is in-body, it opens up a whole vista of opportunities to buy legacy lenses and lenses from other manufacturers, with nary a thought as to whether it does. or does not have IS. You're covered.
WHile it is true that if the camera loses it's IS capability (never heard of that happening)-again you have the simple math: have a single camera with NO IS, and 11 lenses that do, or have a camera that DOES have internal IS,,and 11 lenses that do NOT. Which system has more mechanics to malfunction??
My personal solution is to have 2 bodies with IS,,and purchase any number of lenses (cheaper) that don't, or perhaps give me a redundancy that I otherwise would not have enjoyed.