I am considered a move to Nikon Z camera and lenses so a couple of questions.
Does IS and VR sync or do you have to use one or the other?
If one or the other which is preferable? I have heard in the past that lens is better than camera for stabilization but I am not sure. Thanks for your help.
FrankA373 wrote:
I am considered a move to Nikon Z camera and lenses so a couple of questions.
Does IS and VR sync or do you have to use one or the other?
If one or the other which is preferable? I have heard in the past that lens is better than camera for stabilization but I am not sure. Thanks for your help.
It depends on the lens - the newer Z lenses' VR works in tandem with the IBIS to add an extra stop or so of stabilization and another axis.
IBIS by itself is only useful for short focal lengths because there is simply not enough physical travel in the IBIS mechanism to compensate for longer focal lengths where movement is exaggerated. This is why you see most lenses above roughly 100mm have lens based VR, where newer lenses with shorter focal lengths do not have lens based VR and instead rely solely on IBIS. Lens based VR is also tuned for the specific lens and application (I.e. macro lenses with VR have different tuning than a telephoto with VR).
The nice thing about lens-based VR in the DSLR world was that it was the only way to get a stabilized viewfinder, which made tracking subjects a lot easier, particularly at the longest focal lengths.
The nice thing about IBIS is that it works with any lens, even very old lenses, but it's effectiveness is greatly diminished at longer focal lengths.
Today we get the best of both worlds with many modern lenses where the two work in tandem with each other when possible.
With a long lens the internal stabilization if mediocre and provides according to Nikon a 0.5 stop gain. It is the Nikon lenses that provide the more than 90% of the optical stabilization at this time.
No idea why the issues with the Z cameras as this has been solved by the Olympus engineers with their MFT cameras many years ago.
elkhornsun wrote:
With a long lens the internal stabilization if mediocre and provides according to Nikon a 0.5 stop gain. It is the Nikon lenses that provide the more than 90% of the optical stabilization at this time.
No idea why the issues with the Z cameras as this has been solved by the Olympus engineers with their MFT cameras many years ago.
Olympus probably has the industry's best stabilization, but almost all their longer lenses still use built-in stabilization with few exceptions. The issue is with how far IBIS can physically move the sensor, so I suspect there is slightly more leeway with a smaller, lighter, 4/3 sensor, but at the end of the day they run into the same issues once the focal lengths get too long and IBIS is less effective.
The more you move the sensor, the bigger the image circle of the lens has to be as well. This is where I think 4/3 have an advantage, as they can increase the lens' image circle without making the lenses too large. This is also why it can be advantageous to rely more heavily on lens based IS - if you want to significantly increase the size of the image circle on a FF lens, you are making an already large lens even larger and more expensive, so for sure there are some design compromises there. The rest of the camera also needs to be built to cover whatever physical movement the sensor is capable of, including the shutter, and there is more room to work when the sensor is so small.
Most of Olympus' lenses 100mm and beyond are stabilized such as their 12-100, 100-400, 300, and 150-400. Some of their older lenses and entry level lenses are not. The dual stabilization you can get at 800mm equivalent though is pretty incredible - better than anything from the "big 3" brands no doubt.
One big advantage of IBIS is it can also correct the rotational axis, which lens based stabilization does not, so you gain that extra axis when using them together.
My father actually just picked up an OM-1 + 12-100 IS and 100-400 IS yesterday, I look forward to trying them out myself. I've always had a soft spot for Olympus, I just couldn't live with such a small sensor for what I like to do.
Anyways, IBIS in particular is pretty incredible when you consider the precision required to do what it does.
Unless you plan to make prints larger than 11x14 or use ISO settings above 3200, the MFT has been great for my wife. The new OM-1 may provide higher ISO capabilities but I am waiting for others to determine if this is the case.
