How much better is lens based stabilisation?

M

marc-h

Suspended / Banned
Messages
13
Name
Marc
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm looking for my first SLR and ideally I was hoping for either a Nikon or Canon as obviously they are seen as the 2 best brands and I wouldn't have to worry about starting again with another brand later down the line.

One of the things I have noticed is they both use lens based stabilisation as opposed to Sony for example who use a sensor-shift method. I think I will often want/need to shoot without a tripod so see optical stabilisation as a must. Choosing a Nikon or Canon will mean that getting decent lenses with stabilisation will be much more expensive than a brand that does in body stabilisation.

Ignoring the other pros and cons of choosing one of the big 2 brands what are the major benefits of lens based stabilisation over sensor-shift? Also how much of a benefit is O.I.S considered to be for most people? I have considered it a as must to allow the use of zoom lenses in a variety of situations without a tripod, but maybe this isn't the case?

Apologies if I got some of the terminology wrong, hopefully it pretty much makes sense though! :)
 
NIKON, CANON, I wouldn't say they were the best ,definitely the most popular . Anyways .... I've used both can't say I've noticed a big difference ,with the IS on the censor every lens you use will have it .
 
What sort of photography do you want to shoot where IS/VR is a must?

You still require a good stance and hold on the camera.

It's a tool like other things but not always necessary, particularly on short focal lengths.

We all managed before it was invented:)
 
DazJW said:
Edit: Nevermind.
Click to expand...

But we are not talking about shutters are we? I didn't say forget it either, just pointed out it is not always necessary, and in some cases can make the photo worse.
 
I found that my pentax gear built in body Sr was very good and with an 18-200mm the Sr was better than my nikon 18-200mm vr in then lens . But my sigma is really very good. Lenses bud great because you cam see it working in the viewfinder but both have there advantages some lenses better than other but body is pretty much the same for each lens and not as good as the top lenses but in body Sr works with every lens.
 
Big advantage of sensor based IS is that the view finder shows the actual wobble. With lens based is you never know as it shows you the already corrected version so you can't stabilise yourself so well.

In lens IS also can't cope with panning properly. Some lenses have dual modes so they can. Not all do. And some stabilised lenses are worse optically than their non stabilised counter parts.

All in all I'd say in body IS is actually superior overall...any lens you buy is automatically stabilised. Think Sigma have started offering in lens stabilisation on their sony fit lenses as well as the canon/nikon ones. Best of both worlds.

I wouldn't base your camera choice entirely on that fact though. I'd just pick up all of the brands and try them out. Some will suit you better than others. There is a decent choice of lenses for every brand and with canon/nikon you have 10x the number of people chasing the second hand lenses so you're no better off. Unless you're into macro as the canon mpe65 is only in canon fit.

Ultimately it will probably make no odds either way.
 
srichards said:
Big advantage of sensor based IS is that the view finder shows the actual wobble. With lens based is you never know as it shows you the already corrected version so you can't stabilise yourself so well.
Click to expand...

VR doesn't start working until you half press the shutter button, so until you press the shutter you see all the wobble. So I'm not sure what your point is?
 
Didn't know the nikon one did that. Some of them work all the time I thought...might be more of the bridge cameras that do that though.
 
One other advantage with Pentax in-body SR (the others might do this too, but Pentax is the only one I'm sure about) is that it can also correct for small rotations of the camera. This doesn't just get rid of any vibration in theis axis, but will also compensate for small horizon tilts automatically!
 
Thanks for the replies. After reading my post back I don't think I was very clear but most people seem to have guessed what I meant. I take quite a lot of photos while out walking and it is that type of situation were I think IS could be very useful. I won't always want/be able to use a monopod but may need to zoom in on distant features. In that situation IS should help me get a bit closer without compromising other aspects of the picture.

At the minute I am leaning towards a Sony SLT-A35 as it seems great value for the price, considering features and overall image quality. My second choice is a Nikon D5100 but I think for the photography I plan on doing it will be a lot more expensive. The initial price is probably going to be about £100-£150 more and then the lenses are likely to be nearly double the cost of the ones for the Sony if I decide I definitely need stabilisation.
 
srichards said:
All in all I'd say in body IS is actually superior overall...any lens you buy is automatically stabilised. Think Sigma have started offering in lens stabilisation on their sony fit lenses as well as the canon/nikon ones. Best of both worlds.
Click to expand...

I just wish that Tamron would do the same thing, I looked at getting a Tamron 70 - 300 stabilised lens for my Minolta Dynax 5 which doesn't have in body stabilisation, but Tamron removed it for the Sony version and charge the same price as the stabilised Canon/Nikon version!

Cuchulainn said:
One other advantage with Pentax in-body SR (the others might do this too, but Pentax is the only one I'm sure about) is that it can also correct for small rotations of the camera. This doesn't just get rid of any vibration in theis axis, but will also compensate for small horizon tilts automatically!
Click to expand...

Unfortunately thats only on the higher end Pentax DSLR's (the K-7 and K-5), the lower speced K-M, K-X and K-R don't compensate for rotations and as so don't feature an in camera level or self levelling like they do.
 
Further irritation with the lower Nikon models is they're crippled to only using some lenses. The D7000 and above ( and older D90) can use all lenses. Some complication with in body or in lens AF motors. No such nonsense like that with Sony, Pentax or Canon.
 
I saw some video ages ago (may have been on TP) where reps of Canon and Nikon stated that the reason they have IS/VR in the lens is because the system is designed for optimum perfomance for each lens - where as 'in body' IS/VR is a happy average approach.

No idea if that's true or not or whether it just makes better business sense.
 
Last edited:
You'll get arguments in favour of both in-body and in-lens. TBH, both have small pros and cons and it evens out. Fact is, they both work very well and I wouldn't buy a lens without it, if there was a choice.

FWIW, I believe in-lens works better with longer focal lengths and the benefit of a stabilised viewfinder is a definite plus (not sure how JamesRD works).

However, you mention Sony SLT and with an electronic viewfinder that gets stabilised along with the sensor. It does in the new A77 anyway, so presumably the other Sony SLTs?
 
HoppyUK said:
FWIW, I believe in-lens works better with longer focal lengths and the benefit of a stabilised viewfinder is a definite plus (not sure how JamesRD works).
Click to expand...

I like the stabilised viewfinder too, at 300mm & handheld I find I couldn't do without VR to compose the shot.
 
srichards said:
Further irritation with the lower Nikon models is they're crippled to only using some lenses. The D7000 and above ( and older D90) can use all lenses. Some complication with in body or in lens AF motors. No such nonsense like that with Sony, Pentax or Canon.
Click to expand...

I know what you meant but your statement isn't strictly correct. The entry level models (D40/D40x/D60/D3x00/D5x00) will only AF with AF-S lenses but you can mount and use pretty much any lens Nikon has made since the year dot on any dslr body provided you're happy to manually focus.
 
you may be interested in reading my post, "long exposure blur".
 
PsiFox said:
What sort of photography do you want to shoot where IS/VR is a must?

You still require a good stance and hold on the camera.

It's a tool like other things but not always necessary, particularly on short focal lengths.

We all managed before it was invented:)
Click to expand...

To throw in my two pence.....good technique will nullify the question.

If the manufacturers continue to add 'idiot proofing', face recognition, scene composing, focus, exposure etc etc, won't be too long before we actually stop thinking about being photographers:shake:
 
Bristolian said:
I know what you meant but your statement isn't strictly correct. The entry level models (D40/D40x/D60/D3x00/D5x00) will only AF with AF-S lenses but you can mount and use pretty much any lens Nikon has made since the year dot on any dslr body provided you're happy to manually focus.
Click to expand...

Yes. But having to do without AF on a modern AF lens with a new camera is quite an omission to me.

I meant what you said though :thumbs:
 
redddraggon said:
I like the stabilised viewfinder too, at 300mm & handheld I find I couldn't do without VR to compose the shot.
Click to expand...

Sorry James, I completely misread your previous post. My bad ;)
 
In lens stabilisation is, generally speaking, better as they are tuned for the particular lens they are on so tend to be more efficient than in body IS on a lens by lens basis. For example, with in body IS you'll be using the same system with 18mm lenses all the way to 400mm plus, whereas with in lens IS, the IS used in say, the Canon 17-55 IS will be very different to the Canon 100-400 as the requirement for the long lens will be far in excess of what's required for the 17-55.
 
Last edited:
I am wondering what kind of photography the OP is planning to do when walking around that requires such slow shutter speeds that stabilisation for ALL lenses becomes such a must.

Even with my rubbish technique and shaky hand I can get sharp results by managing the exposure through aperture/shutterspeed/ISO. My initial not so great results were purely down to being 'afraid' to increase my shutter speed and ISO. All modern cameras on sale can easily do that. So unless there is a specialist requirement which hasn't been mentioned yet it is a non-issue in my opinion until you get into say 300mm plus lenses and then they have it anyway.
 
dejongj said:
I am wondering what kind of photography the OP is planning to do when walking around that requires such slow shutter speeds that stabilisation for ALL lenses becomes such a must.
Click to expand...

I want to take pictures of squirrels up trees in dense woodland (dark), possibly on the other side of a wide river (a long way). Hope that's cleared it up! ;)
 
marc-h said:
I want to take pictures of squirrels up trees in dense woodland (dark), possibly on the other side of a wide river (a long way). Hope that's cleared it up! ;)
Click to expand...

You'd be better off with a fast telephoto rather than IS as squirrels etc move fast and erratically. You'll need to freeze the action and IS won't help with that.

Also, if you're doing it from the other side of a river, you'll need a very long lens to fill the frame with a small animal!
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
You'd be better off with a fast telephone rather than IS as squirrels etc move fast and erratically. You'll need to freeze the action and IS won't help with that.

Also, if you're doing it from the other side of a river, you'll need a very long lens to fill the frame with a small animal!
Click to expand...

EDIT- what I put made no sense to start with!

Surely IS is a help in lots of situations. If not why has it become so popular?

I want it to give more flexibility, if it means I can use a slightly wider range of settings for any given shot surely that will help me get the picture I want?
 
Last edited:
marc-h said:
EDIT- what I put made no sense to start with!

Surely IS is a help in lots of situations. If not why has it become so popular?
I want it to give more flexibility, if it means I can use a slightly wider range of settings for any given shot surely that will help me get the picture I want?
Click to expand...

In a word marketing, and advertising. Ok not one word. It's like the fight for the camera with the highest megapixel no. must be best. It sells more. (As an aside Canon have now changed opinion on marketing on the MP count)

Back to the subject

Have a read here

and see what you think.
 
marc-h said:
EDIT- what I put made no sense to start with!

Surely IS is a help in lots of situations. If not why has it become so popular?

I want it to give more flexibility, if it means I can use a slightly wider range of settings for any given shot surely that will help me get the picture I want?
Click to expand...

IS can be very useful, but not in the situation you describe. It won't help if the subject is moving in low light as you'll still have to use a slow shutter speed which will result in subject blurring. This is why you need a fast lens as with an f/2.8 telephoto lens you can at least keep the shutter speed up.
 
marc-h said:
I want to take pictures of squirrels up trees in dense woodland (dark), possibly on the other side of a wide river (a long way). Hope that's cleared it up! ;)
Click to expand...

As Jim says, IS won't help with subject movement - you need high ISO and a low f/number lens to get the shutter speed up.

As a comment though, what you are suggesting here sounds, frankly, impossible. Squirrels, at long distance, in shady trees across a river - it's not going to work. You will need both a long lens and get as close as you possibly can in a hide. Then wait. And wait some more.

On the IS/non-IS thing, there are always nay-sayers who claim you don't need it and that good hand-holding technique is all that's necessary.

Well fine. But however good your technique is, IS will extend that down by about three stops. If that's useful to you, and it's frankly hard to argue that it wouldn't be from time to time, then go for it.

Also, camera shake is always present and all that good technique and higher shutter speeds do is reduce it to an acceptable level. IS works all the time, and helps improve maximum sharpness even when you maybe think it isn't. IS is rightly popular, because it works.
 
marc-h said:
I want to take pictures of squirrels up trees in dense woodland (dark), possibly on the other side of a wide river (a long way). Hope that's cleared it up! ;)
Click to expand...

Unless it sits still to pose for you I am not convinced that image stabilisation will be the answer for that. Erratic little movers they can be. It is hard enough to shoot them in my garden with a riffle (tried ultra sound to get rid but they are clever as well).
 
dejongj said:
Unless it sits still to pose for you I am not convinced that image stabilisation will be the answer for that. Erratic little movers they can be. It is hard enough to shoot them in my garden with a riffle (tried ultra sound to get rid but they are clever as well).
Click to expand...

In the specific example that I tried to shoot with my cheap camera the squirrel was eating a nut, so sat still. The other limitations of my cheap camera stopped me getting a good picture (and my technique!) but the IS on my cheap camera did help me get something. To be honest I'm not sure that situation will crop up that often but I do feel I might need IS. Maybe when I start using a DSLR I will realise you can work round the lack of IS because it is so much better in other areas anyway.
 
I think so, once you start understanding and taking manual control you can get a lot further. Not saying that IS is never useful, merely saying that having it in body for every single lens should not be a deciding factor in my opinion.
 
odd jim said:
You'd be better off with a fast telephone
Click to expand...
How is that going to help?

Ring ring ring ring
Squirrel: Hello?
OP: Mr Squirrel?
Squirrel: Yes, squeaking?
OP: Would you mind awfully crossing over the river? I'm trying to photograph you but you're too far away.
Squirrel: Cross the river? What do you think I am, a beaver? Cross it yourself you baldy ape.
Click. Bzzzzzzzzzz

It's not going to work.
 
Llamaman said:
How is that going to help?

Ring ring ring ring
Squirrel: Hello?
OP: Mr Squirrel?
Squirrel: Yes, squeaking?
OP: Would you mind awfully crossing over the river? I'm trying to photograph you but you're too far away.
Squirrel: Cross the river? What do you think I am, a beaver? Cross it yourself you baldy ape.
Click. Bzzzzzzzzzz

It's not going to work.
Click to expand...

You're right, it won't.
 
To complete my squirrel story here is the picture I took, I remembered more trees than that though! :) -

92061451.jpg



and my second attempt -

sq2e.jpg
 
Last edited:
Out of interest..do you have any exif data left of that photo?
 
HoppyUK said:
On the IS/non-IS thing, there are always nay-sayers who claim you don't need it and that good hand-holding technique is all that's necessary.

Well fine. But however good your technique is, IS will extend that down by about three stops. If that's useful to you, and it's frankly hard to argue that it wouldn't be from time to time, then go for it.
Click to expand...

Don't know about anyone else, but I wasn't saying technique means it not necessary, just it's not the be all and end all.

I use my 70-200 at weddings and if the church is dull and I can't get a high enough shutter speed, then it helps as you say but it is always off to start with.

Horses for courses:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top