Image Stabilization

[GraveyardMistress]

I've been looking at DSLRs, and from what I can tell, the IS on these is built in to the lenses, not the body itself? Or am I reading things wrong?

[JETA]

As far as I know the IS is in the lenses. I have two with IS and love it!

[deckcadet]

Some DSLRs have in-lens stabilization (Nikon VR, Canon IS), while others use in-body stabilization (Sony Alpha etc.). In-Lens stabilization is, according to some tests, (as well as Nikon and Canon's statements) more effective, and has the added benefit of stabilizing the image in the viewfinder as well, which can help during panning, tracking, framing with long telephotos, and theoretically can help with other functions.

I'm personally a big fan of in-lens stabilization which is tuned for the type of lens specifically. I've handheld shots at 1/5 sec at 200mm with a 70-200/2.8 VR or the 200mm f/2.0 VR at 1/8 sec or so (the latter lens is several times larger than the 70-200 and weighs 6 pounds), and had them come out sharp.

[JSPhoto]

If it's Canon it is in the lens, some Nikons have VR in the lens and then there are others (Sigma I think) has it in the body.

To me it makes sense having it in the lens as not all lenses need IS. And not all types of shooting requires IS either. Canon has two versions of some lenses, one with IS one without it.

JS

[deckcadet]

Sigma has in-lens OS on some lenses. I don't think the SD14 has in body...

[pisco]

Sony Olympus and Pentax make cameras with body stabilization. So, for practical saying, all the lenses for this cameras become IS or VR (you can turn it off if you want to, as somebody stated, not all types of shooting requires stabiliz).
Canon says that lens stabilization is more effective than body stabilization, but reviewers can't tell the difference yet. Personally I thought that with longer lenses (400mm) body stabilization could not compete with lens stabiliz, but after seeing pictures I don't think so anymore.

[fx101]

By the way, body stabilization is actually really good. Some lenses which simply don't come with VR can benefit quite a bit. It all depends on the brand whether it is lens or body.

[Dave Perkes]

Image stablilsation in a camera only works with a limited focal length range. At the long end of the telephoto range in camera IS is less effective; especially when compared to lenses with IS/VR built in and designed for that specific optic.

IS is only of limited use in any case, as under 1:60th of a second; subject movement is a problem. I have both Nikon 18-200 VR F3/5-5.6 and 17- 55 F2.8 lenses Using high ISO settings and fast aperture for dark interiors there is no substitute for the F2.8 lens.

If you are going wide ; say at 18mm you can use 1/20 second exposure. At 200mm you need at least 1/200 sec to keep subject sharp.

Unless you are using a long telephoto; IS is little more than a marketing gimmick!