Not sure you will get a neutral opinion, because a photographer will have one or the other. Those that have experience
with both, will have left one to go to the other side. The question then reverts back to who is better, and the answer is they both work equally well.
Canon is significantly better. VR only works for vibration, hence the VR. Canon IS works with camera shake, vibration, and overall camera motion since it is stabilizing the entire image (ie: IS).
Canon is significantly better. VR only works for vibration, hence the VR. Canon IS works with camera shake, vibration, and overall camera motion since it is stabilizing the entire image (ie: IS).
Really ??
Surely the naming of both systems comes down to offering something essentially the same so called something different to the world markets and the patents and branding of both of them ??
Sorry guys but the best image stabilization HAS to be the Panasonic or Leica system since it is called MegaOIS (Mega Optical Image Stabilization). I just has to be better than just regular old IS.
Both Nikon VR and Canon IS implement optical stabilzation by moving a glass element in the lens to counter unwanted image shake. The stabilizing element is moved based on input from a couple of gyroscopic sensors which detect both vertical and horizontal motion. Nikon and Canon have subsequently added additional features such as Nikon's 'active mode' or the ability for the Canon lens to determine it is on a tripod and turn off IS. Canon has just released a 'hybrid IS' which I believe tries to compensate for forward & back motion in addition to the vertical and horizontal motion.
It is difficult to really determine which system, IS or VR, is most effective. Beyond discussing various different implementations or technoligies with each system, it would be better to ask for example how the VR on a Nikon 70-200 compares to the IS on a Canon 70-200. Just to make it more interesting Nikon's VR II would likely perform better than Nikon VR and the VR on a 70-200 2.8 will likely peform a little differently than it does on a 300 2.8.
I would suspect it would be easier to see differences in performance between two different IS lenses or an IS and VR lens than it would to simply see differences between IS and VR as systems.
you look at the patents and they do basically the same thing. it boils down to how well they implemented what they said they patented. frankly, i would never base a system decision on something like this. there are far more important reasons.
Herb...
reggie747 wrote:
Surely the naming of both systems comes down to offering something essentially the same so called something different to the world markets and the patents and branding of both of them ??
jdben622 wrote:
Canon is significantly better. VR only works for vibration, hence the VR. Canon IS works with camera shake, vibration, and overall camera motion since it is stabilizing the entire image (ie: IS).
HUH? Nikon stabilizes only part of the image? Which part? Edges? Center? Background? Foreground? Just how does it identify vibration apart from camera shake or movement?
Forget photography. You should have a job in advertising.
They are essemtially the same, using different trademarked nomenclature. Which is better depends on the specific lens and time when it was designed. Understandably, newer designs provide better results.
They are essemtially the same, using different trademarked nomenclature. Which is better depends on the specific lens and time when it was designed. Understandably, newer designs provide better results.
Well, with the brand new designs, it's hard to say which is better, but I think the new Hybrid IS from Canon is probably the one to beat.
Prior to that, Canon had the advantage with the fact that there was no need to turn of IS when using a tripod (where the Nikons had problems).
Also, Canons generally had a slight advantage in stops (say comparing the 70-200 IS and VR lenses). Although, the newer Canon lenses (70-200/4 IS) did have an even additional 1 stop advantage. I'm not sure how much this is noticeable in real world.
The only data I've found comparing the two systems on similar lenses are from the Dpreviews of the 70-200/2.8's where the Canons showed a small (maybe not) advantage.
And then there will be the new Canon Hybrid, which will be even better, etc.
Gotta love technology and the $$ it takes to keep up.
However, I'm already satisfied with 3 stops of IS.
Are the IS results viewable in the viewfinder of the sony/minolta systems?
I tried a friend's sony (if I remember correctly) and because it was in body, it didn't help at all when trying to stabilize what I was looking at TTL. I hated it.
If stabilization is implemented by moving the sensor, then the viewfinder will not appear stabilized UNLESS it happens to be an electronic view finder that uses the sensor.
