In theory in lens systems are more reliable since they can be purpose built for that specific focal length or range of focal lengths. In practice this seems to sometimes be true, though not always. There's also the fact that you can see the stabilization in effect while using the optical viewfinder.
Of course proponents of in-body systems will point out that their system works with any lens attached.
Heres my opinion. Yes, lens-based systems work better, but you have to pay a LOT extra in most cases to get that image stabilization, where a camera with the in-body system usually costs the same as one without it. If you're picky and want slightly better IS, then lens-based is for you, if you can afford it. Otherwise in-body is perfectly competent and most people most likely wouldnt notice a difference in their photos.
From an engineering standpoint, in-body would be better, because you only have to make a smaller amount of cameras with the system in it , where you'll be making a lot more lenses with stabilizers in them. That means theres more parts that could break , and more under-warranty repairs that your company could be making if any of the lenses stabilizers goes bad. The lens-based system came from the time when the film plane couldnt be moved to stop shakes, so the lens was the only way they could do stabilization without a gyroscope attachment for the camera itself.
I personally have an a700 (sony) and think the stabilization in it works awesome
Just wasn't sure if it was one of those myths or not...
I mean I've used pretty much all of the major brands and their stabilizers (well ive used the a350, the olympus 510, XSI, and the D60) but never really noticed a difference from the stabilzers... was just a few basic photos of same tree over and over at around 250mm, but still not one that really stood out and made me go "wow this stabilizer stands out!!"...
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
In-Body Stabilizer?
ive always heard the stabilizer is better in the lens than in the body....
but i dont know how true that actually is...
anybody else have an opinion or link that i can read up on this?
thanks...
@mayhem85
In theory in lens systems are more reliable since they can be purpose built for that specific focal length or range of focal lengths. In practice this seems to sometimes be true, though not always. There's also the fact that you can see the stabilization in effect while using the optical viewfinder.
Of course proponents of in-body systems will point out that their system works with any lens attached.
Heres my opinion. Yes, lens-based systems work better, but you have to pay a LOT extra in most cases to get that image stabilization, where a camera with the in-body system usually costs the same as one without it. If you're picky and want slightly better IS, then lens-based is for you, if you can afford it. Otherwise in-body is perfectly competent and most people most likely wouldnt notice a difference in their photos.
From an engineering standpoint, in-body would be better, because you only have to make a smaller amount of cameras with the system in it , where you'll be making a lot more lenses with stabilizers in them. That means theres more parts that could break , and more under-warranty repairs that your company could be making if any of the lenses stabilizers goes bad. The lens-based system came from the time when the film plane couldnt be moved to stop shakes, so the lens was the only way they could do stabilization without a gyroscope attachment for the camera itself.
I personally have an a700 (sony) and think the stabilization in it works awesome
Thanks tony and plothole
Just wasn't sure if it was one of those myths or not...
I mean I've used pretty much all of the major brands and their stabilizers (well ive used the a350, the olympus 510, XSI, and the D60) but never really noticed a difference from the stabilzers... was just a few basic photos of same tree over and over at around 250mm, but still not one that really stood out and made me go "wow this stabilizer stands out!!"...
Once again though I do appreciate the opinions