When Canon could make IS lenses cheaper than Sony's non-stabilised lenses, what is the point in buying a Sony camera with in-body stabilization?
215105
You can make use of Konica Minolta legacy lenses on any of the Sony Alpha-mount camera bodies. Any Minolta AF lens made since about the mid 1980's should work on the A77 body. Your advantage with this is that you can generally find good, used Minolta glass for much less than their Sony, Canon, Nikon, etc, counterparts. Also, you can find various adapters to mount not only legacy Minolta lenses, but also many other brands of lenses to the Sony Alpha bodies. Thus, ANY lens that is mounted on the camera body will immediately give you the benefits of the in-body stabilization built into the Sony system. I believe the stabilization will even work for the older manual focus lenses as well. 2 Minolta auto-focus lenses that spring to mind right away are the 50mm AF f/1.7, and the 70-210mm AF f/4, or "beercan". Both of these can be had for cheap on the used market, and depending on your luck in getting a good copy, are capable of taking stellar photographs. Be sure to check out dyxum.com for lots of Sony/Minolta info including reviews of lots of the older legacy lenses. Hope this was helpful in some way
1974760
No stabilization. However, you would not really need it unless you are planning on shooting with very small apertures, in which case I'm not sure why one would buy this lens. This is an absolutely phenomenal lens BTW.
775711
sorry, did not see this until now. Hope you bought the lens - awesome. It has image stabilization 3 choices off and 2 on's. one for vertical and one for horizontal movement. Here are some butterflies I photo'd with it. www.patricialamphotography.com/flowers/flowers (yes twice on flowers) first 3 photos. very sharp. Wish my Canon 85 mm f1.4 and 24-70 f2.8 had image stabilization. Sorry for the delay
1461547
I don't think "cheapo" is an accurate description. I have problems with focus at extended zoom range. Sony's DSC-HX400/B may be better. Check out the features. The DSC-HX400/B only claims 50x but does mention stabilty as well as other enhancements. Worth a look.
525458
No, all lenses designed for Minolta/Sony cameras don't have stabilization of any sort because that takes place in the camera. As such, all lenses are stabilized.
1270276
It does not work with third party lenses; in fact most third party lens manufacturers that have stabilization in the lens for canon and for Nikon, do not include it for the Sony cameras. I do have third party lenses and OIS doesn't work with them. However, I don't have any Sony A mount lenses, so don't know the answer about those lenses.
779658
that's simply a stupid question. Cost not being a factor, there are a great many Canon cameras that "outclass" anything from Sony.
1738810
I don't know anything about the Sony, but I really like the EM5. While the menu takes some getting used to, (not intuitive) the results are outstanding. In camera stabilization gives me all the options of micro 4/3 lenses made by Olympus, Panasonic, and others. The list is long and getting longer as M 4/3 cameras become more popular. Hope this helps.
454179
Sony camera bodies have built in stabilization and hence provide stabilization to all lenses fitted to the camera. As a result you do not need lens stabilization for lenses fitted with the Sony mount, so missing this feature in the lens for a Sony camera should not affect performance in this respect.
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.
1903913
These are not image stabilized (IS). IS binoculars do exist, Canon makes some, but expect to pay a lot more for them. The 8x25 IS binoculars are listed for $400 on the Canon website.
891107
In practice, it means your ISO needs to be a bit higher than it would with a stabilized lens in some cases. It's certainly not a deal breaker for me.I find that the stabilization with the EM5 is helpful at times, but it doesn't do anything to help with motion blur from moving subjects for example. The gm1 is the camera I reach for most often and the lack of stabilization isn't really even a consideration for me.
1416428
No you have to turn the in camera stabilization off in the camera menu if you intend to use the in lens stabilization. The in camera stabilization in the A77 is good but there are times when I prefer the in lens stabilization of my Sigma lens. The reason being with the Sigma OS ( there name for it) you can see the stabilization working with a nice stabilized view in the EVF. The sony still shakes but then works when the shutter is pressed.
1224059
There is no IS on the lens. Sony relies on in-body IS in the alpha mount line. So it is not a great matchup.
811337
Nope. There's reasons to own Canon and Nikon. Sony is pretty much an island unto themselves.
678035
It's a specialty piece of kit that is not as mass produced as other products. No Economy of Scale in production.Canon knows professional photographers will spend the money if they want something.
1341751
No, it isn't. For similar money you can get the fabulous Fujifilm XS-1, or the Fujifilm HS30exr is cheaper but has a smaller sensor. Both have full auto modes, and both have large zooms so you c\n get close to the action. They also have image stabilisation built in. If you decide to take a tripod as well, whatever camera you take make sure image stabilisation is turned off whenever you use it, or if you take a shot with the camera resting on a surface, or even if you use a monopod. Remember hat, and you can stick to auto for all else.