Digital SLR Cameras Forum

Digital SLRs Forum Discuss digital SLRs, lenses, RAW conversion, or anything else related to digital SLRs. You may also want to see the Nikon, Canon, and Sony camera forums.
Digital Camera Pro Reviews >>
Read and Write Digital SLR Reviews >>
Digital SLR Buyer's Guide >>
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Likes to play in cemeteries GraveyardMistress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    26

    Image Stabilization

    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?

  2. #2
    They call me P-Wac JETA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Posts
    2,165

    Re: Image Stabilization

    As far as I know the IS is in the lenses. I have two with IS and love it!
    It's not blurry. It's bokeh.

    Canon EOS 1D Mark IV
    Canon EOS 5D Mark II
    Canon EOS 1D Mark III
    Canon 24-70mm EF f/2.8L
    Canon 24-105mm EF f/4L IS
    Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
    Canon 17-40mm EF f/4L
    Canon 15mm F/2.8 EF Fisheye Lens
    Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro
    Canon 50mm f/1.8
    Canon 600EX-RT Speedlite
    Canon 580EX Speedlite
    Canon EOS Rebel 300D

  3. #3
    Check out our D300 Pro Review! deckcadet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Gainesville, Florida, USA
    Posts
    1,189

    Re: Image Stabilization

    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.
    Harrison
    Nikon Forum / Digital SLR Forum Moderator | moderator bio
    Check out our new Nikon D300 Pro Review D3 review coming soon...
    Nikon Samurai #9 | NPS Member
    10 Lenses 5 Bodies 3 Macs 1 Sore Back

  4. #4
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    McCordsville, IN
    Posts
    4,755

    Re: Image Stabilization

    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
    Canon 1D
    Canon 1D MK II N
    Canon 70-200mm USM IS f2.8
    Canon 200mm f1.8 USM
    Canon 300mm f2.8 USM IS
    Canon 28-300mm USM IS f3.5-5.6
    Canon 50mm f1.8
    Vivitar 19-35mm f3.5-5.6

  5. #5
    Check out our D300 Pro Review! deckcadet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Gainesville, Florida, USA
    Posts
    1,189

    Re: Image Stabilization

    Sigma has in-lens OS on some lenses. I don't think the SD14 has in body...
    Harrison
    Nikon Forum / Digital SLR Forum Moderator | moderator bio
    Check out our new Nikon D300 Pro Review D3 review coming soon...
    Nikon Samurai #9 | NPS Member
    10 Lenses 5 Bodies 3 Macs 1 Sore Back

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Reston, VA
    Posts
    131

    Re: Image Stabilization

    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.

  7. #7
    The Polariser fx101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    652

    Re: Image Stabilization

    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.
    --The camera's role is not to interfere with the photographer's work--

    --Cibachrome: It's like printing on gold.

    --Edit my photos as part of your commentary if you want to.--

  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Cambodia
    Posts
    1

    Re: Image Stabilization

    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!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •