Shake reduction

[jonathan_ed]

Hi all

I am still debating my first move into DSLR, and weighing up all the pros and cons.
One thing i have come accross is shake reduction / vibration reduction.

I have noticed the Pentax K200D has that built into the camera, while other cameras i have been looking at (canon 1000d and nikon d60) have the shake reduction (or their variant) built into lenses rather than the actual camera.

My question is, which is better? As obviously not all lenses out there have it, so with the pentax it would be there to use on which ever lens i use.

help...

 

[redhed17]

The better Image Stabilisation technology is built into the lens, but when it is built into the body you get the benefit on every lens.

So if you want IS with Canon and Nikon, you will have to buy every lens with the technology built in, adding to your costs.

You also get the benefit of seeing the stabilisation at work in the viewfinder though when it is built into the lens, not so when built into the body.

You pays your money you makes your choice.

 

[StewartR]

The better Image Stabilisation technology is built into the lens, but when it is built into the body you get the benefit on every lens.

So if you want IS with Canon and Nikon, you will have to buy every lens with the technology built in, adding to your costs.

You also get the benefit of seeing the stabilisation at work in the viewfinder though when it is built into the lens, not so when built into the body.

You pays your money you makes your choice.

Good answer.

 

[reddeathdrinker]

Another thing you could ask is "Am I going to take photographs in situations where VR is necessary?"

Here's some bedtime reading

 

[heidfirst]

The better Image Stabilisation technology is built into the lens, but when it is built into the body you get the benefit on every lens.

It depends as both have pros & cons.
In-body is probably better for fast wides & in-lens better for ultra telephotos but ultimately they both perform fairly similarly.

 

[StewartR]

In-body is probably better for fast wides & in-lens better for ultra telephotos but ultimately they both perform fairly similarly.

Really? That's the first time I've ever heard either of those two claims.

Most people believe that in-lens always performs better - or at least always has the potential to perform better - simply because the IS/VR/OS algorithms are tuned specifically for that particular lens. It's a pretty compelling argument to my mind. But I've never seen any quantitative evidence to demonstrate how much better it is.

 

[arclight]

Another thing you could ask is "Am I going to take photographs in situations where VR is necessary?"

Here's some bedtime reading

I think there are plenty situatuions.
Yesterday afternoon was so dull that at ISO 400 I was shooting at 1/45th @ f.9.

Glad of VR then.

However, I see it as a safety net and still do all I can to steady the camera.

 

[Jonmurgie]

I wouldn't buy a CAMERA purely because it offers IS in the body, there are more things to consider IMO. Buy a camera as it takes great pictures, then buy the lenses you require and if IS is essential save a little more and get the IS version of that lens.

 

[redhed17]

I wouldn't buy a CAMERA purely because it offers IS in the body, there are more things to consider IMO. Buy a camera as it takes great pictures, then buy the lenses you require and if IS is essential save a little more and get the IS version of that lens.

Can a camera with inbuilt IS not take great pictures?

If a camera with built in IS (not Canon or Nikon) takes great pictures then you will get the benefit of the technology with every lens and will not have to seek out IS lenses for your Canon or Nikon.

You are right though, in body IS is not the only reason to buy into a specific brand, that said, it can be seen a plus by some people (though not by others). It is only one aspect to take into account before you choose to buy into manufacturers format.