The IS question...

Printable View

  • 08-28-2008, 08:00 AM
    OldClicker
    The IS question...
    It seems that, with my inability to hold the camera steady, I would see a significant benefit from 'image stabilazation'. Question is - should I concentrate on trying to pick up a Sony with IS in the camera so I only pay for it once instead of every time I by a lens? - TF
  • 08-29-2008, 05:58 AM
    MB1
    Re: The IS question...
    Well the problem with gettin IS in the body is that every time a body is upgraded you start to get the urge to buy a new body. OTOH all your lenses are going to have IS and if you have problems at ALL focal lengths IS in the body works with wide angles too (most IS lenses are medium to long focal lengths).

    The advantage of IS in the lens is that lenses are current for a long time and when the bodies with hot new features are introduced your IS lenses will work with them.

    In other words it is six of one and a half-dozen of the other.
  • 08-29-2008, 08:10 AM
    Don Kondra
    Re: The IS question...
    Greetings,

    Image Stabilization is a useful feature. I prefer to have it in camera.

    While you're looking at Sony you may want to consider Olympus. Very generally speaking the camera's and lenses are also smaller and easier to hand hold.

    In the end though cost might be the deciding factor.

    While the Standard lenses are relatively inexpensive, the High Grade lenses are in the $500 range and the Super High Grade are ~ $1000.

    The cheapest alternative is a tripod :D

    Cheers, Don
  • 08-29-2008, 08:51 AM
    dumpy
    Re: The IS question...
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MB1
    Well the problem with gettin IS in the body is that every time a body is upgraded you start to get the urge to buy a new body. OTOH all your lenses are going to have IS and if you have problems at ALL focal lengths IS in the body works with wide angles too (most IS lenses are medium to long focal lengths).

    The advantage of IS in the lens is that lenses are current for a long time and when the bodies with hot new features are introduced your IS lenses will work with them.

    In other words it is six of one and a half-dozen of the other.

    While I mostly agree with these statements, I have to say that I wouldn't worry about upgrading the body and not having IS. IS is becoming an important part of DSLR systems, Nikon and Canon put it into some of their lenses, Olympus and Sony put it into some of their bodies. Not sure what Pentax has done in this area.

    Oly and Sony are not going to stop putting IS in their bodies, a new, but similar body to your old one (say from an Olympus 520 to a 530 if thats what they are going to call it) will most likely still have IS, possibly with a design that improves on the old one.

    I think in the long run, IS in the body is probably cheaper, but there are so many other factors at play in regards to cost.

    The real question is, which one performs better??
  • 08-29-2008, 09:53 AM
    Greg McCary
    Re: The IS question...
    I agree with Dumpy. It seems in body is really not to expensive. If you compare the cost of the Olympus 420 (without IS), to the cost of the 520(with IS). It is really a bargian for how well it works. Cheaper than a tripod and easier to carry. And even the older OM lenses can be used with IS.