any opinions on the in camera Sony IS vs IS in the lens. A friend has the Sony and swears its a better deal that all the money Ive spent on IS L lenses
The in-camera IS won't stabilize the view in finder, and probably can't compete with in-lens IS when focal lengths are very long. Aside from that, it's hard to argue against having a system that works with all lenses.
Photon wrote:
The in-camera IS won't stabilize the view in finder, and probably can't compete with in-lens IS when focal lengths are very long. Aside from that, it's hard to argue against having a system that works with all lenses.
Both have pros and cons
Pros for IS are:
Better stabilation on longer lenses . each IS system can taylored to each lens (the IS in the 17-55 aint the same as in the 800 5.6!)
The VF 'Float' can help keep the AF point on target.
Cons are:
More expensive
You only have IS on IS lenses
SSS Pros are:
You have stabilization on all your lenses
makes lenses cheaper (note to sony why are your lenses like the 70-200 2.8 as expensive as the Canon IS version?)
Cons are:
Its not taylored to any lens so it will work better with shorter focal lengths
You dont get that VF float
Its interesting to see that Sigma is making some of its OS lenses in mounts that have in body IS,
Its also interesting to see that the 2 main 4/3rds makers (oly & Pano) have differing IS systems. Oly use in body but Panasonic use Lens IS
I have used the pentax variant, so this is not an apples to apples comparison.
The pentax system was shite at detecting pan shots. It was also less consistent. I would never turn off the IS on my 70-200 f4 IS, but I would on my pentax when it was not needed.
I will always trust that I can shoot at 2-4 stops slower than 1/f with the canon, where I would be happy to get a 50% keeper rate at that speed with the pentax.
That being said, having any form of IS with a prime or alt glass is sooooo soooo nice.
I have in-body IS on my E-P1. It's really nice for when I have non-stabilized lenses attached (all of my m4/3 lenses), though the IS isn't as effective as my Canon IS lenses. The biggest difference in use is the lack of stabilization while composing, which is a very nice aspect of lens based IS.
aladyforty wrote:
any opinions on the in camera Sony IS vs IS in the lens. A friend has the Sony and swears its a better deal that all the money Ive spent on IS L lenses
Sony may have been forced to go with in-body IS since they don't make any of their own lenses; Cosina doesn't have IS technology, and Tamron is only just getting into the game with their VC lenses.
So the sony in camera system is up to 2 stops worth?
How does that compare to my hand holding a shot @ 85mm, 1/15 of a second and getting a clear, blur free image? Canon IS started at a 2 stop advantage and has since evolved to 4 stops. Will the Sony system ever reach 4 stops as well?
Plus Canon are showering the market in IS lens. 18-55, 17-55, 17-85, 15-85, 55-250, 18-135, 18-200mm and that's just the EF-S lens. Price wise, aren't some of these lens cheaper than Sony's equivilant lens? Not too mention for every sony lens in the range, there are 3 from Canon.
Asmodeous wrote:
So the sony in camera system is up to 2 stops worth?
How does that compare to my hand holding a shot @ 85mm, 1/15 of a second and getting a clear, blur free image? Canon IS started at a 2 stop advantage and has since evolved to 4 stops. Will the Sony system ever reach 4 stops as well?
Plus Canon are showering the market in IS lens. 18-55, 17-55, 17-85, 15-85, 55-250, 18-135, 18-200mm and that's just the EF-S lens. Price wise, aren't some of these lens cheaper than Sony's equivilant lens? Not too mention for every sony lens in the range, there are 3 from Canon. ...Show more →
I think at shorter lengths you would get more like the quoted 3-4 stops (sony/pentax mention upto 4 stops) but at much longer lengths >200mm then it probably drops to 2 ish.
Yes alot of sony's (better) lenses are pretty much on a par or more than the canon versions with IS
As to can SSS be improved yes it probably can but its probably easier to improve lens IS more as its got to be easier to redirect the light path to a fixed target than move the target to a fixed light path. Also with the newer IS that canon have brought out that can deal with tilt as well as axis movement I cant see how a sensor based system can do that.
As for why we have both systems you have to remember that Canon and Nikon have had IS/VR since before Digital so it made sense to do it that way (cant think moveing the film would have been easy). But Minolta/sony , Pentax and Olympus all brought theirs out in the digital period.
it's only a matter of time before canon is forced to put IS into its cameras. like with health care reform, after people have the "public option" of IS (in-body and available to all lenses), they'll wonder why it took so long.
photographers shouldn't live their lives in fear of getting blurry shots.
A bit OT, but I wonder how the Panasonic lenses with the Mega O.I.S. work on a Olympus body which has BIS?
I'm sure the engineers have designed a way so both forms of IS don't conflict with one another, so I don't see why it would be a issue if Canon and Nikon started offering Body Image Stabilisation (BIS) and optical IS alongside one another.
Having BIS would mean that your benefiting from having some form of stabilisation on all lenses, not just the ones offered with IS, fast primes with a 2-3 stop IS would be great especially with ISO's up to 102,400 you will never need a tripod again!
But having optical stabilisation still available for long lenses would mean that those who want to use really long lenses, can still have all the benefits of optical stabilisation.
I'm sure the BIS could be switched off automatically (though the lens communicating with the camera) so it should be fool proof.
I reckon Nikon would be the first to offer BIS, and then Canon will reluctantly follow.
molson wrote:
Sony may have been forced to go with in-body IS since they don't make any of their own lenses; Cosina doesn't have IS technology, and Tamron is only just getting into the game with their VC lenses.
Absolutely incorrect. Sony sure does make their own lenses. Take the tour: Lens Tour
Sony inherited SSS from Minolta. Both IS systems have their advantages. In-lens does get a bit better performance in really long lenses, and the stabilized VF helps in that regard, but I would contend that in-body stabilization is more useful on average. It works with all lenses, and it has no start-up lag. You just leave it on and shoot.
abam wrote:
it's only a matter of time before canon is forced to put IS into its cameras. like with health care reform, after people have the "public option" of IS (in-body and available to all lenses), they'll wonder why it took so long.
But then Canon would have to develop a system of communication between the two IS systems, to prevent both cooks from spoiling the stabilization broth.
If they both correct in the same direction at the same time, it'll be rather messy, so I'm guessing it's an "either, or" deal.
