In Body vs in Lens IS

[Ultra Magnus]

I've always been a proponent of in body IS and here why-

Advancements in the technology are bound to occur from time to time, and as that happens, you will need to buy the same lens over again if you want to take advantage of the new technologies.

http://www.canon.com/news/2009/jul22e.html

Just think if I just went out and bought a brand new 70-200/2.8 L IS USM lens and then read that article? I'd be seeing if I could return it and wait for the new lens to come out.

There has always been a saying I've heard over and over- Bodies come and go, but lenses are a lifetime investment. Not true anymore w/ in lens IS systems. If I'm already bound to replace bodies (my current schedule is a new body approx. every 3yrs), with in body systems I'm already going to be getting the latest and greatest technology, and I can happily keep shooting with my old glass.

Just my $0.02

BM

[Franglais]

The article only mentions the application of "hybrid IS technology" in lenses. Supposing it can't be fitted into an in-camera system? It seems rather complex.

[OldClicker]

The 'hybrid IS technology' is fore-back as well as side-to-side, correct? Doesn't Pentax already have this in-body?

They said that in-body IS would never work with an FF sensor until the Sony 900 was introduced.

"Supposing it can't be fitted into an in-camera system?" There is no can't, only when.

I think they will soon all will have in-body IS - it just makes sense. I have some wonderful old Minolta AF glass that was all purchased for $50-$350 - all image stabilized. And with my next body (in the distant future), they will still have the most advanced IS available.

TF

[Ultra Magnus]

There are some (that I won't group myself with) who state that optical IS is an outdated idea, that was invented at the time film was still the preferred media to capture images. Since "film" shift technology is pretty much impossible (at the very least, terribly impractical), optical stabilization was the only alternative.

BM

[AgingEyes]

Since "film" shift technology is pretty much impossible (at the very least, terribly impractical),

You have not seen photographs produced by merging photographs taken with films together, have you?

[AgingEyes]

There has always been a saying I've heard over and over- Bodies come and go, but lenses are a lifetime investment. Not true anymore w/ in lens IS systems.

You have not used manual focus lenses before? You took up photography when AF became the norm?

[OldClicker]

You have not used manual focus lenses before? You took up photography when AF became the norm?

That was a one-time move started in the mid-'80s. Now we are looking at technology in lenses that would change every 2-3 years, not every 25+. - TF

[AgingEyes]

That was a one-time move started in the mid-'80s. Now we are looking at technology in lenses that would change every 2-3 years, not every 25+. - TF

Point is: people still use those old, MF lenses. Those lenses work with either AF or MF camera bodies. If you only care about AF, then of course you won't use the MF lenses even if they have better optics, or give you the kind of look that you are after.

No doubt, IS, VR or whatever it's called, in body or lens, help. At the same time though, people have been photographing without that feature since day one. I am not going to come out and declare that every camera body will have in-body IS/VR in the future. Even if so, I have a feeling that the IS/VR lenses we have today will still be usable on those camera bodies. Perhaps you can even have the option to use either of the IS/VR features.

I'm not worried.

[Ultra Magnus]

Point is: people still use those old, MF lenses. Those lenses work with either AF or MF camera bodies. If you only care about AF, then of course you won't use the MF lenses even if they have better optics, or give you the kind of look that you are after.

No doubt, IS, VR or whatever it's called, in body or lens, help. At the same time though, people have been photographing without that feature since day one. I am not going to come out and declare that every camera body will have in-body IS/VR in the future. Even if so, I have a feeling that the IS/VR lenses we have today will still be usable on those camera bodies. Perhaps you can even have the option to use either of the IS/VR features.

I'm not worried.

You are comparing different tools used for different jobs. Sure, you CAN use either AF or MF lenses for shooting still subjects and sporting events, but one is better suited for one job than the other.

The point has been made, that IS technology is evolving, relatively fast. If you don't care, that's fine and dandy, but it matters to a lot of people.

And BTW, even old convereted M42 MF lenses benefit from in body IS. Which is very nice for people on a budget scouring ebay for old legacy glass. (See Minolta Beercan in my sig )

Show me a 70-200 F4-ish lens, that's pretty sharp and has most excellent bokeh w/ optical IS that can be had for around $200.

BM