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

[DznyFan]

I guess the bottom line is, does vibration control or image stabilization really make a difference in real world? Do you feel like it is a MUST have or is it just marketing fluff?

 

[ukcatfan]

It is not a "must" but it sure is nice to have. There are advantages and disadvantages to both systems. The in lens tests to work a little better than in body. It usually is about 25% better based on what I have seen. For real world application, I doubt you could tell much of a difference. Some have said that in body is better at short focal lengths and in lens is better at telephoto, but I do not have anything to support that. A disadvantage of in body is that you cannot see the stabilizing effect in the optical viewfinder. An advantage is that it works on every lens. Some in lens system lenses do not even have a stabilized lens available on some models. Another advantage of in body is the cost. You pay once and that is it. With in lens, the lenses with it are more expensive than without. Sometimes it is only a little bit more, but other times it can be hundreds more. One last thing. Third party lenses are starting to come out with in lens stabilization for cameras with in body stabilization. They cannot be used at the same time though.

 

[saturndb]

It can make a diference depending on the type of setting you are in. I have used IS at Animal Kingdoms Safari ride and it made a huge difference vs not having that feature turned on.

Check out this video from Canon explaining it:

javascript:NewWindow('http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/lens/index.html','','850','650','yes','yes');

 

[Gdad]

I am curious how the two systems work with video- I have no idea really since my camera does not even have video but I assume whenever I get another one it probably will. Does VR/IS just run continuously when shooting video? Same for in-camera?

 

[Marlton Mom]

I have seen a huge difference in my Low light shooting pix. The image quality is much better. I was taking pix of school kids in action in low light classrooms, auditoriums and Quaker Meeting House lit with four 60 watt bulbs (Really! )

Check out my previous post on VR for more info:
http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2345536

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I think that stabilization manages to be both very useful and overrated. It doesn't help in bright light situations. It doesn't help when your issue is subject motion. It rarely helps (and can even hurt) when you use a tripod. It does help when you are shooting hand-held in low light and your subject isn't moving too much. That happens a lot. Even with IS, though, don't expect miracles.

Money aside, I prefer in-lens stabilization to in-body. The main advantage is that you see the effects of the stabilization in the viewfinder. My understanding is that it also has advantages for really long lenses when handheld (something I don't tend to do). You also get panning modes with most in-lens systems and you don't with most in-body systems. That said, money matters and buying a stabilizer once with the camera is currently cheaper than buying it with every lens. It's hard to see how the small advantages of in-lens are worth the currently large difference in price. Also, there are a great many lenses for which a stabilizer is not an option, in-body.

Of the two in-lens systems, I prefer Nikon's over Canon's. I haven't seen any real functional difference. They label the switches different with Canon's Mode 1 being like Nikon's Active mode and Canon's Mode 2 being like Nikon's normal mode. The latter disengages one or both axis of stabilization when significant motion is detected so that panning works better. The main thing that I prefer about Nikon's is the name. It is possible to meaningfully search on the term "VR" but not on the term "IS".

I am curious how the two systems work with video- I have no idea really since my camera does not even have video but I assume whenever I get another one it probably will. Does VR/IS just run continuously when shooting video? Same for in-camera?

I've had a video capable camera for quite a while and I can't answer that question. All of the video that I've shot has been done with a tripod. If you are really curious, I'll do an experiment this weekend and see. I can definitely see a problem with audio and stabilization. The IS systems on my lenses tend to be audible and the auto-gain mic on the camera would probably pick it up. Audio on current DSLR video cameras is lousy any, though, so I still recommend using an external audio recorder an mixing in post.

 

[Gdad]

I've had a video capable camera for quite a while and I can't answer that question. All of the video that I've shot has been done with a tripod. If you are really curious, I'll do an experiment this weekend and see. I can definitely see a problem with audio and stabilization. The IS systems on my lenses tend to be audible and the auto-gain mic on the camera would probably pick it up. Audio on current DSLR video cameras is lousy any, though, so I still recommend using an external audio recorder an mixing in post.

I'm only a little curious- since I figure I'm at least a year out or more on a camera body upgrade. I guess if I really wanted to know I would read up on it- it's just something I have been curious about since I really think the only thing I would use video for would be a spontaneous short clip of the kids or a show or something and likely be hand held in my case.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I just checked. With a Canon 5DM2 and a 300mm f/2.8 IS, the stabilizer works while the video is on.

 

[Code]

It's a must for me, and I benefit from it almost every day since I'm taking pictures of my family indoors almost every day, and also I love having it at Disney where its not always practical to set up a tripod. Much of my hobby shooting doesn't benefit much or at all from IS of either type, but I know my priorities

Body-IS is also the main reason I'm not with either of the big 2 brands. Third party lenses, that I wouldn't have otherwise considered due to lack of IS/VR, have saved me at least $1500. Sure, I've had to make certain sacrifices vs OEM glass, but for the immense savings, I have been perfectly willing. I also enjoy stabilization on my primes, and other lenses where there isn't any IS/VR available for C/N (it is amazingly effective with ultra-wide since the sensor shift needed is small).

 

[sdshutterbug]

I have experience with both and I did not find sensor-based IS to be very effective at all. Lens-based, on the other hand, I have found to be amazing. To me it's worth the extra money to buy an IS model of a lens if one is available. I can get much slower shutter speeds with my tamron 18-270 vc than I could on my old sony camera with any lens. Another thing is, as people have said, you see the effect in the viewfinder, which for me is very useful when trying to compose telephoto shots, and also for getting better-aligned handheld HDRs.

 

[DznyFan]

It's been interesting to read the input, and I'm greatly appreciative of it.

This is my dilemma, and why I ask: As I was about to pull the trigger and place the order on the Sony a550 and a couple new lenses, my husband posed a very logical question (as I griped about Sony's noise issues) - Why don't you switch brands?

I hadn't considered changing brands largely because of the budget I set for myself; I had my new goodies all picked out, plus I already have a number of A-mount lenses, old and new, and didn't want to start all over again on the budget I had set.

But then, I did a little digging (it didn't take much) and have found the Nikon D90 to have better sharpness and noise handling overall, especially at high ISOs. I hate noise. I want to be able to count the hairs on a fly's a**, should I desire. And I need to to it on a consumer budget. I shoot low light - a lot. Two of my favorite lenses in my bag are my 75-200 f/2.8 and my 50mm f/1.8. As I've mentioned, I often shoot at night on the fly at Disney instead of setting up properly, because... :hubby taps impatient foot:
I don't always have the most perfect conditions when I'm stalking my daughter while she's at work. I rely on my fast lenses... crutch.

If I buy Nikon I'm going to have to get a minimum of 4 lenses all over again - two of which I can get in a D90 kit, plus the f/2.8 zoom (Sigma, which I was already planning on getting for the Sony) and a prime 50mm or 30mm.
Sony, having the IS in the body, it doesn't matter what lens I use, as Code pointed out, and that's a plus.
To stay in my budget, with a total Nikon changeover, I am going to have to give up that benefit with the two higher speed lenses. Well... my brain says: what is the point of having the low light capability if I'm not going to have stabilization? Especially on the zoom?

(hope Kramberries doesn't catch me shopping again... he's probably watching people in the stands at the Olympics shooting flash pics, anyway. )

 

[Code]

I have experience with both and I did not find sensor-based IS to be very effective at all. Lens-based, on the other hand, I have found to be amazing. To me it's worth the extra money to buy an IS model of a lens if one is available. I can get much slower shutter speeds with my tamron 18-270 vc than I could on my old sony camera with any lens. Another thing is, as people have said, you see the effect in the viewfinder, which for me is very useful when trying to compose telephoto shots, and also for getting better-aligned handheld HDRs.

This doesn't make sense to me.. I've never owned C/N but I had plenty of time playing with (ok... worshipping and lusting after ) my friends' Canon 70-200/2.8 IS and Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR and compared them alongside my old Minolta 70-210/4 (boy did I feel inadequate ) and now my Tamron 70-200/2.8 and I've found I get generally about the same hit rate at extreme shutter speeds. Maybe the A200 is just much worse than my A700? But I've never read that before. Also I can't speak for > 200mm, but I think lens-IS probably has an advantage when you get very long.

But then, I did a little digging (it didn't take much) and have found the Nikon D90 to have better sharpness and noise handling overall, especially at high ISOs. I hate noise. I want to be able to count the hairs on a fly's a**, should I desire. And I need to to it on a consumer budget. I shoot low light - a lot. Two of my favorite lenses in my bag are my 75-200 f/2.8 and my 50mm f/1.8. As I've mentioned, I often shoot at night on the fly at Disney instead of setting up properly, because... :hubby taps impatient foot:
I don't always have the most perfect conditions when I'm stalking my daughter while she's at work. I rely on my fast lenses... crutch.

The D90 has the same sensor as the D300 and D5000 (and also Sony A700), and the dpreview A550 review compares it directly to the D5000. (disclaimer: I rarely agree with the conclusions of dpreview reviews but their testing methods seem to be OK so I usually trust their raw data).

You can see here that the A550 measures slightly worse in noise, but that makes sense because it has 0.4 stops more dynamic range on the black end (see here). Basically the difference comes down to where the manufacturer sets the black point and how that translates to noise measurements. Nikon just sets it a little higher (if you shoot RAW, you can decide for yourself). So overall, I think they're comparable (the A550 is a HUGE leap forward over the A2xx/A3xx)

If I buy Nikon I'm going to have to get a minimum of 4 lenses all over again - two of which I can get in a D90 kit, plus the f/2.8 zoom (Sigma, which I was already planning on getting for the Sony) and a prime 50mm or 30mm.

Unrelated to the noise discussion, but I'd recommend the Tamron 70-200 over the Sigma. I bought both to compare for myself, and optically the Tamron is far superior at or near f/2.8.

Well... my brain says: what is the point of having the low light capability if I'm not going to have stabilization? Especially on the zoom?

I agree here, especially for the shooting situations you describe.

I'm not playing Sony fanboi here (honest!).. especially considering that if Sony doesn't get off their butts and announce an A700 replacement at PMA this month, I'm going to be strongly considering a switch myself... I'm just a big proponent of body-IS as it has big benefits for people like me that want to have more capabilities for much less dough.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

For real world input - what hand held shutter speed do the Nikon and Canon users on the forum feel comfortable shooting at with lenses that do not have IS?

I was talking about this with my nephew a few weeks ago. He shoots with a Canon 30D and I have Sony. I feel extremely comfortable using shutter speeds of 1/15 and also can get a good number of keepers down to 1/8. He commented that he could not consistently achieve that. (We were talking shorter focal lengths - static objects). A few comments I've received on exif info leads me to believe this is true with other C/N shooters. I've only briefly fiddled around with a cousin's Nikon D80 so I have no idea what sort of slow shutter speed I could obtain for comparison.

Telephoto lenses are just different beasts although I do think there is some help with the in body stabilization. I do know that I have far more keepers with long lenses on the Sony with stabilization than I ever did with my film camera which was always a huge frustration for me.

I have no idea which is better but I do think both help. Maybe I'll have to turn off the stabilization some time and see what happens.

 

[Khokhonutt]

It's been interesting to read the input, and I'm greatly appreciative of it.

This is my dilemma, and why I ask: As I was about to pull the trigger and place the order on the Sony a550 and a couple new lenses, my husband posed a very logical question (as I griped about Sony's noise issues) - Why don't you switch brands?

Since you already have the lens investment, I'd think it might be worth at least trying the A550 before you make the change. I can tell you that when I moved from my A100 to my A700, the noise handling difference was night and day. I've heard the A550's capabilities in that realm are very comparable to the A700.

I spent a long time researching when I was shopping for my A700, but when I sat back and looked at photos from the comparable Nikons versus the stellar pictures you see from the high end Nikons, I personally didn't see a difference that justified the cost of dumping my whole setup for a different brand.

I'm not playing Sony fanboi here (honest!).. especially considering that if Sony doesn't get off their butts and announce an A700 replacement at PMA this month, I'm going to be strongly considering a switch myself... I'm just a big proponent of body-IS as it has big benefits for people like me that want to have more capabilities for much less dough.

If you jump ship, ping me, I'd be interested in your A700 and maybe some of the other goodies you would be dumping.

 

[DznyFan]

The D90 has the same sensor as the D300 and D5000 (and also Sony A700), and the dpreview A550 review compares it directly to the D5000. (disclaimer: I rarely agree with the conclusions of dpreview reviews but their testing methods seem to be OK so I usually trust their raw data).

Unrelated to the noise discussion, but I'd recommend the Tamron 70-200 over the Sigma. I bought both to compare for myself, and optically the Tamron is far superior at or near f/2.8.

Yeah, I noticed that about the sensor. I shoot mostly raw now so I can take advantage of the increased control in PP.
On the lens - I kicked the tires on the Tamron about a month ago - I was turned off by the hunting and the noisiness. (real noise) I'd probably leave AF off a lot. Love the SSM on the Sigma. But - if optically it's that much better (and I did find some image comparisons and noted the difference) I may have to rethink that decision. My other option is that the salesperson locally told me that Sony greenlighted them to sell their demos and he would be able to give me the Sony version at a significant savings. I plan on confirming that statement today, and if so, it may be a no-brainer.

Um, Code, are your children sitting IN a table????

For real world input - what hand held shutter speed do the Nikon and Canon users on the forum feel comfortable shooting at with lenses that do not have IS?

I'd like to hear the answers to this, too!


Khokhonutt - on a different note, how do you like your beercan?

 

[Khokhonutt]

Khokhonutt - on a different note, how do you like your beercan?

Until I got my Sigma 30mm F1.4, it was hands down my favorite lens. It's still my favorite, but the Sigma is running a close second. I like my Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 as a good all around walking lens, but there's something about the Minolta that I just love.

That said, I have been researching the Tamron 70-200mm F2.8 (and the Sigma version of that lens), to get the option of shooting F2.8 on my longer lens. I'm really torn at this point and will probably get a wide angle lens first, but I've been eyeing the new 70-200mm before marching band season starts in the fall.

 

[disneyboy2003]

For real world input - what hand held shutter speed do the Nikon and Canon users on the forum feel comfortable shooting at with lenses that do not have IS?

This is where the 1/focal length rule-of-thumb applies. So on my 50mm lens, I would try for at least 1/50 sec shutter speed. On my 100mm lens, I would go with at least 1/100 sec shutter speed.

I hear that you should also take the "crop factor" into account with 1/focal length. So with the 100mm lens on a crop-factor body, I'm supposed to be okay starting at 1/160 sec. With the 50mm lens on a crop-factor body, start at 1/80 sec.

BTW, OP asked whether image stabilization is worth having. I think it definitely is worth having. Image stabilization lets you take a photo handheld with at least 3-4 stops slower shutter speed.

Plus, all those times at Magic Kingdom where I'm supposed to have a tripod for fireworks photos? With image stabilization, I can actually take decent fireworks shots handheld.

Or, while waiting in line at Space Mountain, I've been able to take pictures inside the dark interior handheld, too:

Let me also add a +1 vote to having image stabilization inside the lens. I like being able to SEE the effects of image stabilization in my viewfinder as I'm composing each shot.

 

[Code]

I kicked the tires on the Tamron about a month ago - I was turned off by the hunting and the noisiness. (real noise) I'd probably leave AF off a lot.

All of my lenses use the camera's screw drive motor so it's no different than the others.. silent was nice but I guess I'm just used to the noise. As for hunting, I haven't had a problem, but the A700 has an extra sensitive center focus point with f/2.8 or faster lenses, I've never tried it on any other Alpha.

But - if optically it's that much better (and I did find some image comparisons and noted the difference) I may have to rethink that decision.

Yes I would say it is MUCH better optically. I liked quite a few things about the Sigma better - seems a little better built; focus speed from one end to the other wasn't much different but the Sigma definitely tracked and got a lock faster; silent focus was nice; heck I even like how it looks better - but the optical difference was really big in the f/2.8-4.0 range where I'm most interested, much more than I expected based on the many reviews I'd read, and enough to make me forget about any other advantage. I considered the Sigma unusable at f/2.8, it was like looking at a photo with a piece of wax paper laid on top. It was much better by f/4, but I'm not carrying a huge heavy lens around if I'm not willing to use it at or near wide open.

Um, Code, are your children sitting IN a table????

Yep You can see the whole table in this video. It's awesome.. much better than 3 high chairs!

Khokhonutt - on a different note, how do you like your beercan?

You didn't ask me but the beercan was my primary tele for quite a while, thought I'd throw my thoughts in. The good: GREAT color (its best attribute) and bokeh, very good sharpness even wide open, fantastic value for the price. The bad: horrible CA (too much to be correctable in post), really slow focus, rotating front element, annoying lens hood.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

This is where the 1/focal length rule-of-thumb applies. So on my 50mm lens, I would try for at least 1/50 sec shutter speed. On my 100mm lens, I would go with at least 1/100 sec shutter speed.

I hear that you should also take the "crop factor" into account with 1/focal length. So with the 100mm lens on a crop-factor body, I'm supposed to be okay starting at 1/160 sec. With the 50mm lens on a crop-factor body, start at 1/80 sec.

If this is the answer then in body image stabilization most certainly make a great difference. And lower shutter speeds take you out of your comfort zone and lead to a reduction in keepers? Just clarifying as the speeds given are the rule of thumb going back to film days. But again - maybe it is as far as you feel comfortable with and corresponds a bit to what my nephew indicated.

Yep You can see the whole table in this video. It's awesome.. much better than 3 high chairs!

Ingenious seating Code and the video is precious!

 

[Groucho]

I am curious how the two systems work with video- I have no idea really since my camera does not even have video but I assume whenever I get another one it probably will. Does VR/IS just run continuously when shooting video? Same for in-camera?

I remember showing you the video in the K-7 when at Summit 2010 but I realized that I probably should have shown you it with the IS (or SR as Pentax calls it) off, as well, and let you try holding it. I find it works as well or better than the IS you'd get in most camcorders, that is to say, there is a dramatic difference between having it on and off.

I hadn't considered changing brands largely because of the budget I set for myself; I had my new goodies all picked out, plus I already have a number of A-mount lenses, old and new, and didn't want to start all over again on the budget I had set.

But then, I did a little digging (it didn't take much) and have found the Nikon D90 to have better sharpness and noise handling overall, especially at high ISOs. I hate noise. I want to be able to count the hairs on a fly's a**, should I desire. And I need to to it on a consumer budget. I shoot low light - a lot. Two of my favorite lenses in my bag are my 75-200 f/2.8 and my 50mm f/1.8. As I've mentioned, I often shoot at night on the fly at Disney instead of setting up properly, because... :hubby taps impatient foot:
I don't always have the most perfect conditions when I'm stalking my daughter while she's at work. I rely on my fast lenses... crutch.

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

Look, this discussion comes up and the merits are debated but there an "elephant in the living room" that C/N and the most dedicated in-lens IS fanboys don't like to talk about:

THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY NO DRAWBACKS TO HAVING IS IN THE BODY. None. Zero. Nada. Zip.

It boggles my mind that C/N haven't caught on to this. If one of them did it, the other would have to quickly follow. You don't have to choose one or there other. There are lenses for Pentax and (I think) Sony and Olympus that have in-lens IS. Some claim to work even better combined with in-body IS (and why wouldn't they? as far as the camera is concerned, you're holding it even steadier) and some say to turn off the in-body IS.

C/N could easily add IS to the body and have it automatically turn off whenever you attach an IS lens. Or have them work together. There are no negatives.

Meanwhile, in-body IS give you, of course, the ability to stabilize any lens. This is especially great if you like oddball older lenses like me - how about a stabilized 1950s 135mm F3.5? Heck, on C/N, you can't get any 135mm prime stabilized, and only one or two primes of any focal length. Even if you drop $1,200 on a Canon 50mm F1.2 - you still have no IS. How about a stabilized Lensbaby? You'll never see that with in-lens IS! Want a good-quality stabilized 70-200mm F2.8? Hmm, there's the OEM C/Ns for nearly $2k... or the Tamron for $700!

Furthermore, you have the other "hidden" benefits which are only beginning to be exploited (especially with the K-7) - it can automatically rotate the sensor +/- 1 degree to automatically level the horizon. You can manually move the sensor in different directions for fine-tuning composition (mainly useful for tripod shooting; in effect it makes every lens a shift lens with limited range)... etc, etc.

IMHO it seems like it's the C/Ns marketing departments that have forced their users to accept the lack of in-body IS. It doesn't have to be a one-or-the-other choice. I suppose they are also worried about sales dropping for their top-of-line stabilized lenses versus the non-IS equivalents that can be had for much cheaper.