ozmo Posted September 28, 2006 Share #1 Posted September 28, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Forgive me if this has been dealt with elsewhere, but I'm wondering what others' thoughts are on the question of putting IS in the body of the camera versus in each lens. The former approach seems more efficient in that it should reduce the cost of lenses. Have Leica and Panasonic in the Digilux 3/L1 opted for the latter because it produces superior results, or are there other considerations at work here? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 Hi ozmo, Take a look here Image Stabilization. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Riley Posted September 28, 2006 Share #2 Posted September 28, 2006 yes I think the concensus is thats the better route Riley Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted September 28, 2006 Share #3 Posted September 28, 2006 I like the IS in the body better because I get image stabilization with all the old manual lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
like_no_other Posted September 28, 2006 Share #4 Posted September 28, 2006 yes I think the concensus is thats the better route Riley What consensus, please? Forget all discussions about in body vs in lens stabilization regarding efficiency. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozmo Posted September 28, 2006 Author Share #5 Posted September 28, 2006 Zitat: Why forget about efficiency? It's money out of the photographer's (often shallow) pocket to replicate IS in every lens. There has to be a good reason for it in terms of image quality, no? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fancypants Posted September 28, 2006 Share #6 Posted September 28, 2006 The advantage of IS in the lens is that you see the effect right away. IS in the body is applied as you take the shot so you don't know how effective it was till you review the photo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davephoto Posted September 29, 2006 Share #7 Posted September 29, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) The advantage of IS in the lens is that you see the effect right away. IS in the body is applied as you take the shot so you don't know how effective it was till you review the photo. never thought of that, richard, but that sounds like a good reason. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChipNovaMac Posted September 29, 2006 Share #8 Posted September 29, 2006 IMO the winner will be either Canon or Nikon that puts IS/VR in their bodies that works in conjunction with their IS/VR lenses. Since I shoot with Nikon DSLR's right now, the prospect of gaining an additional 1 to 2 stops of VR in addition to the possible 4 stops with VR II technology would rock IMO. And give VR to those lens that don't have it built-in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted September 29, 2006 Share #9 Posted September 29, 2006 ... go easy on the red/ amber/clear etc stuff and your hands won't shake in the morning... save a motza Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.