DSLR with Image stabilization in camera body or the lens ?? which is better: So is it better to buy camera body with IS and save some money with lenses as camera already has IS or invest more for lenses with IS??
573088
Ah Grasshopper, As in most things in life, the answer depends on who you ask (says the old Kung-Fu matser as he strokes his long, white beard) The argument in favor of in-body image stabilization sounds very convincing on the surface: Pay for the extra cost just once, save on all existing lenses, or new lenses that follow. If you already have some good lenses from Pentax, Olympus or Minolta, then choosing a corresponding dSLR body with built-in image stabilization makes perfect sense. If not, then consider the following counter-arguments: 1. Good lenses (with or without IS) are often more expensive than a digital camera body, and have longer lifespan. Your digital camera body will most likely be obsolete in 4-5 years, but good lenses may serve you for 10 years or longer. So it makes less sense to pay extra for dSLR body with built-in IS. 2. Image stabilization is needed most at longer focus length, but in-body IS (mechanical moving the sensor) is only effective at shorter focus length. Let's assume that the sensor can travel up to 1mm in any direction. When focus length=50mm, this 1mm travel corresponse to 1.1 degree of angular rotation (correction for camera shake). But to achieve the same 1.1 degree correction at 300mm, the sensor needs to travel by 6mm! Even if this kind of travel were possible, the inertia of sensor unit will make the response very slow. With optical IS this is not a problem - because light has no inertia. 3. Optical IS gives you a stable image when you look through the optical view finder, so you know exectly how well it is working. Mechanical IS cannot give you a stable image through the optical view finder.
1232658
To me, both are equally good. If you already have the body I'd go with more Sony lens versus buying a second body
658102
Hi Dennis. There is no stabilization on this lens. It's very fast and we don't have a need for it. Now, if you are shooting videos, yes they will appear a little jittery of course, but for pictures it's perfect.
1630105
So, I'm looking to upgrade from the Canon EF-S 55-250 ISII lens that I currently shoot my daughter's soccer and outdoor nature scenes. I know this is an entry level L, still the price is hard to complain about. How much of a difference from my current lens (on a 70D) will this make, and will I still be able to shoot fairly clean/crisp images @ 200mm without IS? I can use a monopod, so I'm sure that would help. Thoughts?
1577270
This was my second DSLR and before this I had Nikon. Picture quality is better then Nikon and it has Image stabilization (IS)although most of lenses now a days have vibration reduction (VR) but it is not same ( IS is better then VR). And also it is water resistant so I believe it is ideal for your need. I love my camera.
264982
No, it does not have image stabilization. The optics are far better than the kit lens and I've been very happy with the images.
133472
I should also add that for a point-and-shoot camera, in-body image stabilization is relatively effective. This is because:1. The image sensor is very tiny at only 10% that of a full-frame sensor. This means less mass to move around, and hence less inertia.2. The physical focus length is much shorter at about 5-15mm. This means a smaller travel at the sensor is sufficient for IS.
953614
No, you will have no stabilization. You will, however, have a fast focusing outfit, usable for flying birds. The shutter speeds you need for that are so high that stabilization doesn't matter. I recommend this combination. If you get a second body, get a GX7 or Oly body to get the stabiization.
133469
Just as NLee said -- in general, the in-camera stabilization is cheaper while optical lens stabilization is more effective. Canon and Nikon have released some relatively inexpensive optically stabilized consumer lenses, however, and various third-party lens manufacturers have also started adding OS to their more popular lenses as well as some longer telephotos. In-lens optical stabilization technology is starting to get cheaper and more common.
1161577
You'll need to buy a lens because it doesn't come with one. That's what "body only" refers to. You do not need an expensive lens. I use the lens from my non-digital Nikon and it works well. You will also need to buy a CompactFlash memory card or the camera will not be functional.
1817486
For the GX7, lens optical image stabilization will override in body stabilization. The in body stabilization will be used when the lens contains no built in stabilization. Page 203 of the pdf users manual includes a chart detailing this behavior.
1151739
Hi, thanks question. This lens does not have image stabilization. Those use the lens for Olympus compact digital camera would be lens. Thanks in advance.
1293196
IS (Image Stabilization with this lens gives you two extra stops of light, enabling faster shutter speeds. I have one and I love it.bob
1125279
This is a kinda "which should come first, the chicken or the egg?" question. Make the investment of a very good lens, then later, when you can afford it, upgrade your camera body.
1596677
Image stabilization is only found in some Canon Lenses. "IS" is not a Canon Camera feature. All EOS Canon Cameras support lenses that have the "IS" feature.
948160
If you can afford the IS lens, that is the one I would suggest. Any lens over 100 mm would require a tripod, however with IS (Image Stabilized) it will prevent blurring and minimize camera shake. Go to this site for more info. http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/standard_display/Lens_Advantage_IS
427198
Read this review it does mention that this lens does have "image stabilization".....hope this helps...http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron-18-270mm-3p5-6p3-vc-pzd