DSLR with Image stabilization in camera body or the lens ?? which is better: So is it better to buy camera body with IS and save some money with lenses as camera already has IS or invest more for lenses with IS??
573088
Ah Grasshopper, As in most things in life, the answer depends on who you ask (says the old Kung-Fu matser as he strokes his long, white beard) The argument in favor of in-body image stabilization sounds very convincing on the surface: Pay for the extra cost just once, save on all existing lenses, or new lenses that follow. If you already have some good lenses from Pentax, Olympus or Minolta, then choosing a corresponding dSLR body with built-in image stabilization makes perfect sense. If not, then consider the following counter-arguments: 1. Good lenses (with or without IS) are often more expensive than a digital camera body, and have longer lifespan. Your digital camera body will most likely be obsolete in 4-5 years, but good lenses may serve you for 10 years or longer. So it makes less sense to pay extra for dSLR body with built-in IS. 2. Image stabilization is needed most at longer focus length, but in-body IS (mechanical moving the sensor) is only effective at shorter focus length. Let's assume that the sensor can travel up to 1mm in any direction. When focus length=50mm, this 1mm travel corresponse to 1.1 degree of angular rotation (correction for camera shake). But to achieve the same 1.1 degree correction at 300mm, the sensor needs to travel by 6mm! Even if this kind of travel were possible, the inertia of sensor unit will make the response very slow. With optical IS this is not a problem - because light has no inertia. 3. Optical IS gives you a stable image when you look through the optical view finder, so you know exectly how well it is working. Mechanical IS cannot give you a stable image through the optical view finder.
1557439
Image Stabilization (IS) does NOT help with moving objects... it will ONLY HELP with stationary objects like buildings or a landscape. It will not help take stable pictures of people or kids... in fact, it could lead to blurrier photos of people as the IS algorithm will allow the use of a slower shutter speed... you'll end up with sharp backgrounds and blurry people!! Avoid IS unless you know the consequences. The SD900 should be a great choice.
427199
Read this review it does mention that this lens does have "image stabilization".....hope this helps... http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron-18-270mm-3p5-6p3-vc-pzd
528653
Does that lack of image stabilization in the 20 mm lens factor in against choosing it over the 14-45 lens? I think I'm all set to get the 20 mm lens after doing my research and reading these comments, but that was one area I was still questioning.
264982
No, it does not have image stabilization. The optics are far better than the kit lens and I've been very happy with the images.
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.
1817485
The gx7 is compatable with O.I.S lens. Lens without stabilization will use the in-body stabilization and lens with stabilization will bypass the in-body and use the in-lens stabilization.
1721517
Since it's a one-piece, point-and-shoot camera, the lens is an integral part of the camera. Single-lens reflex cameras offer separate body and lens and sometimes other parts, and they cost more than the SX1 IS which is one photographic marvel. It's meant to be used and not sit around unused as I did with mine......
1133831
I do not own any Sony mirror less or 3/4 or DSLR cameras, but none of there cameras have stabilize in the lenses. They have sensor shift to stabilizer the image. Mostly Nikon and Canon have to use stabilized lenses.
1945332
People take all sorts of amazing pictures with any camera. A new body will not magically improve your pictures. I would look at getting a lens with an aperature of no less than f/2. Like the 50mm f/1.4 or the 35 mm f/2.
2116168
The lens doesnt have Image Stabilization which is my only down point for it. Otherwise its an awesome lens!
1697256
No, the body does not have image stabilization. Some of the lens do...the kit lens does but it isn't an ordinary kit lens. It is a superb piece of equipment.
1716983
The real difference is the image stabilization (IS). The quality of the two lenses is very good so you just have to be really really steady or use a stand to work without the IS. Hope this helps
1161576
Body only generally means that there is no lens or memory card bundled with the camera. That being said a lens and memory card are REQUIRED for functionality of a dslr.
1928667
No. Canon does offer one with image stabilization, but it is several hundred dollars more expensive. You can google Canon lenses & see it & read its specs.
1630105
So, I'm looking to upgrade from the Canon EF-S 55-250 ISII lens that I currently shoot my daughter's soccer and outdoor nature scenes. I know this is an entry level L, still the price is hard to complain about. How much of a difference from my current lens (on a 70D) will this make, and will I still be able to shoot fairly clean/crisp images @ 200mm without IS? I can use a monopod, so I'm sure that would help. Thoughts?
658102
Hi Dennis. There is no stabilization on this lens. It's very fast and we don't have a need for it. Now, if you are shooting videos, yes they will appear a little jittery of course, but for pictures it's perfect.