There appears to be very little (if any) difference in the effectiveness of the two methodsJoel Orlinsky.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Marian22 wrote:.

Could anyone tell me what the difference is between IS in the body orthe lense?.

Would you recommend one over the other?.

Thanks in advance for the input..

IS on lens involves having a set of lenses (generally at the center of the focal path) that adjust to bend the incoming light to correct perceived unwanted motion in the lens. With Body IS the sensor is shifted to adjust for perceived motion. Both work but in my opinion IS in lens is superior as it can compensate for larger jostles then the sensor shift can. Only time will tell though.Richard Herbert, Monterey CAStandout from conformity, 'Only a dead fish swims with the current.'..

I was wondering too, and I did a lil bit of research on the net yesterday.

First, the obvious difference: IS on the body means no needs for IS on the lens, therefore cheaper lens..

But with the IS on the body (talking about the sensor shifting kind... not digitally IS kind), the sensor will need to shift a long distance if you are zooming in..

Therefore, not much difference if you are not shooting telephoto... thats what I have learned : )..

Marian....

Both systems work..

The advantage of "in body" stabilization is that all your lenses will now be image stabilized. If you have lens based stabilization then you must purchase IS lenses which are really very much more expensive than regular ones..

Some folks will swear that in lens stabilization works better.Although there is no real proof of that claim.But those are probably the folks who enjoy buying $800 lenses.MartyPanasonic FZ7, FZ20, FZ30Olympus C7000..

Minolta 7D, Konica-Minolta 5D, Canon 10D, 20D & 30D with 70-200mm 2.8 IS & 24-105mm IS.

In the shorter focal lengths, in-camera-body IS may have a slight edge. Above 100mm, the in-lens IS takes the edge and really runs away @ 200mm and beyond..

Now, the Sony Alpha s supposed to be better than either of my previous Minolta bodies. Which is probably true, since teh Sony Alpha is the third body to have Is in the body> I do nto think it is a true 3rd generation of IS technology though..

In Camera body Is means all your lenses will benefit from the IS Feature. In Lens IS means you will pay more for the lens , than one not having IS..

Since I did not see a consisant 3 stop advantage on my 24-105mm IS, I sold it off. I can get 2 stops with my monopod. With My Minolta bodies, I could geta consistant 2 stop advantage, and 3 stops ran around 50% keepers. Here again, not much better than a using a monopod but it was clearly better..

Long tele's, in lens IS gives me many many more keepers than either using a monopod or In body IS>Dave PattersonMidwestshutterbug.com'When the light and composition are strong, nobodynotices things like resolution or pincushion distortion'Gary Friedman..

Lens based IS stabilizes the image in the viewfinder. This is quite useful in holding the focus point where you want it. The image is also stabilized for the AF sensors. This, presumeably, allows for better focussing at any focal length..

In any event, all of these systems do provide good value if you can not otherwise use a tripod.Leonhttp://homepage.mac.com/leonwittwer/landscapes.htm..

FACTS.

1. Both systems work. Both reduce camera shake. Neither reduces motion blur in the subject..

2. In-body works for every lens. But in-lens is not available in some lens ranges that might be important to you..

CLAIMS.

1. In-lens is better than in-body at longer focal lengths. This claim has not been demonstrated..

2. In-lens sacrifices image quality by interposing extra glass, is heavier than an equivalent non stabilized lens, and is more expensive. Yes, it's heavier, and often it's more expensive than the same manufacturer's non-stabilized lens, but the degradation in image quality has not been demonstrated..

WHERE YOU'D WANT STABILIZATION.

1. In crowded areas like zoos and museums where tripods and monopods are a problem or aren't allowed at all..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

1/100s f/6.3 at 500.0mm iso200 (more than 2 stops of stabilization, at 500mm, which is similar to 750mm taking into account the 1.5 crop factor of the SONY A100).

500mm is a pretty long focal length. See CLAIM #1. The SONY A100 gave me the 2 stops of stabilization I needed for this shot..

2. When you can't stabilize the boat or train you're in..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

3. When you want to seize the moment and don't have time or terrain to set up tripods..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

1/20s f/6.3 at 420.0mm iso400 (4 stops of stabilization at 420mm [630mm equivalent] shot in the dark shadows under the canopy of the Panamanian rain forest, off the beaten path, where strict silence forbade setting up tripods and monopods.).

This shot may not win any prizes, but to the bird watchers I was with who had problems seeing this bird with their binoculars, it meant verification of their sighting. This shot required 4 stops of stabilization at 420mm. Handheld at 1/20s - I'm pleased with the capabilities of in-body stabilization..

By the way, all of these were shot with the Sigma 50-500mm super telephoto. This lens is not made in a stabilized version for ANY camera manufacturer. See FACT #2..

I'm not pushing SONY. But in-body stabilization is the only thing that's stopping me from buying the otherwise fine cameras made by Canon or Nikon...

From what I have read, the one in the lens is better, especially at tele end. But disadvantage being limited to one lens. The body based one is effective for all lenses you put. Which one you would want would mainly depend on what focal length you shoot..

Http://budding-nature-photographer.blogspot.com/..

ANSWER

Midwestshutterbug wrote:.

Dennis Phillips wrote: > CLAIMS.

1. In-lens is better than in-body at longer focal lengths. This claimhas not been demonstrated..

This Claim has been demonstrated to me, from multiple lens-bodyownership of both Konica-minolta and Canon systems..

Dave PattersonMidwestshutterbug.com'When the light and composition are strong, nobodynotices things like resolution or pincushion distortion'Gary Friedman.

Sorry but it's still only a claim.Ok, in lens is better for YOU than the Sony..

I am not particularly steady but at 500mm or so I can get a comfortable 1/30 (ie do not have to think about it or make an effort) with my lowly Pentax K100d...if yours is as good great...happy for you..

The Pentax K10d is better still than the K100d.

This was done for another recent thread. Iso 200 1/13 510mm (765mm equiv fov) I would not normally have bothered at that speed and would have upped the iso to get at least 1/30..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Since you claim yours is BETTER you should be able to go slower right? For me it is the physical length of the lens that makes the difference.....which is why I think wide angles are hand holdable at silly speeds like 1/2.

BOTH systems work and just as well on teles....the difference is in paying once or each time you buy a lens..

The ONLY test to date comparing some systems (flawed as it may be) that I am aware of (there is a thread in the open talk forum I think) was by a German magazine and gave the winner as the Pentax K10d..

As I have said before, if yours is better than a lowly K100d, great happy for you but all I need to know is mine works so well I do not have to think about it..

Neil.

Link back to flickrhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/26884588@N00/..

I think what you read depends on whose bias is talking. Canon is certainly putting out a lot of publicity claiming in lens better for telephoto. A lot of KM, Sony, Pentax and Olympus people seem to have a different opinion. I know my KM5D, said to not be as effective as the Sony A100, does a darn good job of stabilization with my 300 and 500 mm telephotos..

I also find antishake very useful with my 50mm macro lens for handheld flower and insect shots...

ANSWER

The original poster's question was whether there was a difference between in-body and in-lens stabilization systems, and whether we could recommend one version of stabilization over another..

My answer was that in-body gives the advantage of stabilizing all lenses, and that the alleged advantage of in-lens at longer distances had not been demonstrated..

I congratulate you on your technique. That you can take a good shot at 1/90s @ 400mm without IS, a 2 stop achievement, demonstrates that you are good at stabilizing without any help from the camera. That means that when you choose to use the camera's image stabilization system, you'll probably do much better than others who don't have your excellent technique..

The bird shot was manually focused since it was too dark for the autofocus to work well at that distance with a lens restricted to a maximum aperture of only f6.3. But remember that AF is a different parameter from image stabilization. The 50-500mm Bigma is a super lens, but focus speed is not one of it's strengths. On the other hand, focus speed is not a substitute for stabilization once focus has been acquired..

Similarly, the ability to use high ISO is not a measure of stabilization. At some point, regardless of camera system, you'll not be able to find an effective ISO/shutter speed combination to eliminate blur, and you will have to rely on either lens or sensor stabilization, or else lose the shot..

Your bug shot was 1/3s at 200mm. That's 6 stops, which again demonstrates your great technique as much as it demonstrates in-lens stabilization..

However, I maintain that sensor stabilization also works well at long distances. I offer in evidence this shot at more than twice that length, but also with 6 stops of stabilization..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

1/8s f/20.0 at 500.0mm iso100.

That blue blur in the background is a bicycle rider..

100% crop.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

You may argue whether the man's hair is as sharp as the bug's antennae, but have a look at the detailed stitching in the collar of the man's shirt..

This to my eyes is a highly useable handheld shot taken at 1/8s over 500mm using a lens that is not available in a stabilized version..

So I repeat my earlier advice to the OP..

In-body gives the advantage of stabilizing all lenses, and that the alleged advantage of in-lens at longer distances had not been demonstrated..

The problem with IS in lens is that is is only in some lenses..

IS in body is there all the time..

There are wide angle ranges where in lens IS isn't even made.. which is ok for typical landscape shots.. but what if you are shooting candids or portraits in special circumstance..

This is my daughter on her first train ride. The old train car was rocking constantly as people got on for the ride. I am glad I had a bit of help with getting the shot using my Sigma 10-20..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

If you specialize in telephoto shots like birding etc. and always have that IS lens on your system edge in lens IS.

If you like to shoot lots of different subjects, use different or wide angle lenses.. edge in body..

In body is also best for a budget shooter..

Ken - KM 5Dhttp://www.cascadephotoworks.com..

Ken_5D,you're right, as usual (Note: usual does not equate to always-lol).

What is in your hands is best..

I had good luck with Minolta's In-body stabilzation, I admit it..

I'm having slighter better, (in my own opinion) with Canons In-Lens stablization..

All that said, any form of Stabilzation is better than none.Which includes a monopod or even a tripod.I find monopods very practical and enjoy using them..

Probably a good thing, since I cannot get a lens below 17mm,with IS..

I firmly belive that after stablization, the next most important thingis focus. Specifically, the ability to focus quickly, accurately, consistantlyand in low-light &/or low-contrast situations..

(My single biggest gripe about Minolta's 100-300mm APO - poor low contrast focusing. Otherwise, I loved that lens.).

Dave PattersonMidwestshutterbug.com'When the light and composition are strong, nobodynotices things like resolution or pincushion distortion'Gary Friedman..

I'd recommend in-body to budget buyers. You can put together a stabilized kit for less money with in-body. For enthusiasts, in-body gives you stabilization with interesting (fast) lenses like WA, normal, short tele primes between f/1.4 and f/2.8. When it comes to lenses where Canon/Nikon offer IS (VR) odds are you're simply better off with a Canon/Nikon system than Sony/Pentax anyway because they just offer more choices, good prices, probably better AF performance, etc. In other words, even *if* in-lens beats in-body in long lenses, it's irrelevant, because Canon (mostly) and Nikon (secondly) have sewn up that market already anyway. FWIW, my ideal "kit" would consist of a stabilized body for use with a couple fast moderate lenses for handheld use, and a Canon system for it's wide selection of lenses for nature photography..

- DennisGallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com..