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.
91302
I love this lens, but yes... I DO think you should save up for the IS version. I wish I would have. I was just a beginner not knowing what I was purchasing at the time. I am totally kicking myself now. :( Its not terrible, but I think the IS would be much better. In my honest opinion
51540
Body! The body of the omd has quite impressive stabilization and will outweigh that of the lenses you put on the body. I can hand-hold for macro photos and video on the omd with lenses that have built in stabilization or that come without. It's quite impressive!
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?
2257569
This looks like just the body - which would mean that you would have to have a lens to attach. My body had a bunch of problems but my lens were fine so I got the same body as the one I had before (didn't want to learn a "new and improved" body). Hope that helps. I love this camera and the refurbished body was great - not to mention saved a bunch of $$$
23699
No, that's one of the reasons why the costs of the lens is lower. In general use image stabilization may not be so important with such a short focal lens ... in normal lighting conditions. Fortunately the Sony's do pretty well in higher ISOs.
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.
767367
For any Olympus body except the OMD EM5 (or any future bodies with 5 axis in-body image stabilization), use the lens OIS with the Panny 45-200. Pretty much everyone agrees OIS is better than IBIS with this combo.
1125279
This is a kinda "which should come first, the chicken or the egg?" question. Make the investment of a very good lens, then later, when you can afford it, upgrade your camera body.
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.
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.
1232658
To me, both are equally good. If you already have the body I'd go with more Sony lens versus buying a second body
1596678
Image Stabilization (IS) is a feature associated with lenses. When looking at the Canon lenses if it has IS, it has image stabilization. The 7D does work with IS enabled lenses.
159812
I do not agree with J. Gland. You can have a weather resistant lens and a Rebel body. You can clean your camera sensor a lot easier than the internals of a lens. Also, your camera body depreciates in value as fast as a new car or computer...you're lens will hold it's value... One way to really avoid dust is lenses that do not extend while zooming.I've had mine since May 2007 and have used it at the beach, in the Rocky Mountains, at home, in Italy twice, etc... If you look into the front element there are several specs of dust (5 or so) if I look hard enough. They have no effect on image quality. Great lens, wish it was built a little more like an "L", but it's the best compromise for zoom range, 2.8 and IS. I do not agree with J. Gland. You can have a weather resistant lens and a Rebel body. You can clean your camera sensor a lot easier than the internals of a lens. Also, your camera body depreciates in value as fast as a new car or computer...you're lens will hold it's value... One way to really avoid dust is lenses that do not extend while zooming.I've had mine since May 2007 and have used it at the beach, in the Rocky Mountains, at home, in Italy twice, etc... If you look into the front element there are several specs of dust (5 or so) if I look hard enough. They have no effect... » Read More I do not agree with J. Gland. You can have a weather resistant lens and a Rebel body. You can clean your camera sensor a lot easier than the internals of a lens. Also, your camera body depreciates in value as fast as a new car or computer...you're lens will hold it's value... One way to really avoid dust is lenses that do not extend while zooming.I've had mine since May 2007 and have used it at the beach, in the Rocky Mountains, at home, in Italy twice, etc... If you look into the front element there are several specs of dust (5 or so) if I look hard enough. They have no effect on image quality. Great lens, wish it was built a little more like an "L", but it's the best compromise for zoom range, 2.8 and IS. « Show Less
2050378
You will have better images if you use the Canon EF 100mm (without IS) Lens with a tripod. Infact, both lenses have the same colour quality at all. The only differences are "IS" and "PRICE". Thanks
1605796
I use mine with a DSLR but mostly for stills. You would have to watch your breath as that may affect the stability of your scene. I put over 10 pounds of camera and lens. It is very stabil.
2116168
The lens doesnt have Image Stabilization which is my only down point for it. Otherwise its an awesome lens!