VR and IS in body, in the lens, or does it even MAKE a difference?

[DznyFan]

cough-PentaxKx-cough... excuse me, must be something stuck in my throat. Here is comes again - cough-betterhighISOperformancethantheD90andcheaperandinbodystabilization-cough... OK, I'm better now.

You should probably see a doctor for that cough; "Mr. Groucho, I'm afraid you have pentaxitis. As of this date we haven't found a cure."

Seriously, you have a valid point - which I'm willing to look into.

 

[ukcatfan]

You should probably see a doctor for that cough; "Mr. Groucho, I'm afraid you have pentaxitis. As of this date we haven't found a cure."

Seriously, you have a valid point - which I'm willing to look into.

While the K-x is no mid level or professional level camera (i.e. one wheel, no weather sealing, etc.), it has everything I could want out of an entry level model. The only drawback for me was the lack of a wired remote. I solved that with a wireless remote. I had an Amazon gift card from work, so I went ahead and got the Pentax brand one, but there are generics for cheaper. Some people might have a problem with the lack of the AF point showing in the viewfinder, but I almost always use the center and recompose, so it does not affect me.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I cannot say which is better - in lens or in body IS.

All I know is I've been pretty happy with the in body IS on my Olympus.

These were handheld (using a cheap pancake lens to boot):

 

[dmccarty]

Does one needs IS/VR really depends on what type of photography one is doing, to some extent how deep is your wallet, and how strong is your back.

I have wanted an 80-200/F2.8 lens for 15-20 years but never could justify the money. Then I started taking photos at kids sports events and a 80-200/F2.8 would be very helpful. I should FF so the Nikon 70-200/F2.8 VR I was not really an option due to price/performance.

Then Nikon announced the 70-200/F2.8 VR II lens. Since we are trying to sell photos I THINK I can see where VR II and an AFS could help get a few more images. Most of the sports images have been taken with a 105/F2.8, 50/F1.4 or a 35-70/F2.8 lens. The BBall photos have been shot at F2.8 and the 105mm and 50mm are just excellent shot at F2.8. The 105mm surprised me on how good it is wide open since it is a macro lens. The 35-70 is not so good at F2.8

Tax money is arriving today. Lens arrived last week. The lens is the 70-200mm/F2.8 VR II. I am sill in shock that I spent that kind of money.

The lens is awesome. It is simply magic. For what we paid for it I had better say that it is awesome magic.

Here is one of my tests shots with the lens. One of the first five. This is at 200mm at F2.8 with an ISO of 3200 on a D700. Shutter speed was 1/80. By the book it should have been 1/200.

This is a crop of the dogs eye. I think it is around 100-200%. There aint no blurring. There is NO way I could have done this with my 180mm/F2.8 lens.

We had a snow storm last weekend. I got some great photos with the new lens. I could have done the same thing with my old lenses. But I would have had to take the tripod, camera bag with all the lenses, and shutter release. Instead I just went for a two mile walk with the D700 and the 70-200 lens. The thing is amazing. I really would not have wanted to walk two miles with my tripod and gear. I have done it but the back is not so good anymore.

So VR does work. Do you need it depends on what you are photographing.

Later,
Dan

 

[zackiedawg]

My own personal, internal argument for going with in-body stabilization was the fact that I would not only have all of my lenses at any price range stabilized, but also get stabilized primes that aren't even available in-lens from any manufacturer. That worked for me - even if the in body stabilization is only, say 80% as effective compared to the best in-lens systems, it's 100% better when compared to a lens that doesn't offer stabilization!

Is it useful? Depends on your photography - it is massively so for me. I shoot lots of wildlife and birds with very long lenses...no way in the world I'd be able to get clean shots when my shutter speeds are barely scratching 1/200 at 500mm at dusk...stabilization makes it possible. Same with handheld low light shooting, which I do a lot of. Be it in-lens or in-body, I love stabilization.

Your agony over deciding brand is your own thing to decide - so many brands out there and all make a great camera. But just to throw in my personal experience since you spoke directly to the subject and camera - I replaced my Sony A300 with a Sony A550, and the noise handling is many orders of magnitude better. And regardless of which online test rates *this* camera better than *that* camera, to be perfectly honest the average person would be hard-pressed to find the difference in noise sensitivity, detail retention, or noise reduction smearing in a normal, real-world photo taken at ISO6400 between the D90, D5000, KX, A500, A550, 7D, or T1. They're all good, and they're all close. The differences are quite small, and only really when looking at 100% viewable blow-ups on a monitor. I think it gets a little silly when everyone is trying to split hairs to find some incremental advantage of one over another at 100% pixel-peeping levels, unless you were a professional stock photographer trying to sell low light ISO12800 photos to stock agencies and needing every last possible pixel of detail and less noise. But hey, that's just my opinion! What I can say is that the A550 is killer at high ISOs, and what I would deem entirely usable at ISO6400, even ISO12800 in a pinch. It's easily 3 stops better than the A200/300/350.

Just for examples (and these were just test shots I took, not anything 'artistic'), here's ISO12800 with the A550:

Here's ISO6400:

And a few 'real world' shots at ISO6400:

BTW, those are all shot in JPG mode in camera, not RAW conversions. I personally consider those pretty usable and low noise. I think one could get the same types of results with any of those new cameras I listed above. But probably not with most older models. Those are my points though - the new batches of cameras from all the manufacturers are quite amazing, and that the Sony A550 should definitely be on your short list if you hate noise and want to be able to shoot at high ISOs.

 

[bob100]

better than *that* camera, to be perfectly honest the average person would be hard-pressed to find the difference in noise sensitivity, detail retention, or noise reduction smearing in a normal, real-world photo taken at ISO6400 between the D90, D5000, KX, A500, A550, 7D, or T1. They're all good, and they're all close. The differences are quite small, and only really when looking at 100% viewable blow-ups on a monitor. I think it gets a little silly when everyone is trying to split hairs to find some incremental advantage of one over another at 100% pixel-peeping levels, unless you were a
)

absolutely true! noise has never been a problem with the right lens and exposure

about in the lens IS - the guy who runs the popular lens review site www.photozone.de doesn't like IS/VR in the lens because of the degradation in optics -

quote (from the photozone forum)
"I do no longer recommend IS/VR/OIS/OS/VC lenses till the manufacturers have sorted out their QC and manufacturing problems. The problem originates in the nature of IS. The mechanism forces lens elements off the the optical axis. This is nothing else but a forced decentering. This works very fine on paper as we all know. However, de facto it introduces loosely held elements into the system. While this works fine assuming proper QC and manufacturing the system is doomed to deteriorate over time - sometimes less, sometimes more but always a little bit. The extra number of "superfluous" elements make things even worse. There were times when lens kept their performance over a decade or longer. Assmuing regular use I wouldn't bet on a constant performance for longer than 3-5 years now (IS lenses).
Take this as my official statement"

http://www.photozone.de/active/forum/ShowMessage?ID=1113961A

 

[Code]

Here's an extreme example... I took this shot 6 times in continuous mode, each 1/2 sec handheld (!) at 70mm f/2.8 with my Tamron 70-200. I was hoping that just 1 would work out, so I was surprised when 3 of the 6 came out sharp! (So then I averaged those 3 together to reduce noise). I think I'm probably above average steady, but still 50% hit rate for this surprised me.. that's about a 5.5 stop advantage if you're going by the 1/focal rule.

 

[DznyFan]

Justin, I would be one of those hair splitting, pixel-peeping peeps!
I can't believe the difference in the 'older' alpha series, and the new ones. I like that you posted 'real world' quick shots at the super-high ISOs. thank you.

Code, nice work at 1/2 sec! I'm impressed.
(Oh, and BTW - that video is SO cute!)

I'm convinced that regardless of where its at or what we call it, some kind of image stabilization is a requirement. That makes cameras with in-body stabilization that much more attractive... it doesn't matter the lens you use opening up options that much more. Anxious to try some of my own experiments with IS when I get a little time this weekend.

 

[ukcatfan]

From DPReview:

Sigma releases 17-70mm OS for Sony & Pentax
Tuesday, 16 February 2010

Sigma has announced the OS version of its 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro lens will be available soon in Sony and Pentax mounts. Currently available in Canon, Nikon and Sigma mounts, the Sony version will start shipping from February 27, 2010 followed by the Pentax version from March 19, 2010.