Image Stabilisation - How Important ??

[DPB1]

How important is Image Stabilisation in a DSLR ?

Nikon has this with VR lenses but are expensive to buy, but Pentax,Samsung,Sony have them built in to the camera rather than the lens.

I am new to Digital Photography and currently do not know which DSLR camera to go for - More than likely a Nikon D80 but was not sure regarding Image Stabilisation.

Assistance required please.

Thanks


PS - Budget is £650 tops including Kit Lens

[RobDickinson]

Depends?

On what and how your shooting - and in what light.

I'd rather have a fast lens over IS/OS/VR but would prefer both if not for cost and weight, in camera IS is a great idea but it has drawbacks too : cant see the stabalised image in the viewfinder, heat buildup on the sensor, and IMO it gets less effective at longer focal lengths where you need it.

Doesnt help if the sunbect is moving, doesnt help on a tripod (well mebe panning/mode 2).

Also doesnt help if you dont know the basics (keeping the shutter speed realistic, even with IS).

£650 budget is likely enough for a nikon/canon etc kit with IS, but depends what other lenses etc you want.

[salubrious_k]

I think if given the choice between an image stabilised lens and a lens without but with better pitcture quality, I'd go for the latter.

Currently I own both a Canon 24-105 IS f4 and a Canon 24-70 f2.8, both are comparable when it comes to image quality but at the moment I am almost exclusively using the 24-70. This is mainly because I am fairly housebound at the moment (with a new baby) and so most of my shots are portraits, and the wider aperture is more useful in that regards.

If I was wondering around in town taking shots, I'd probably bring the 24-105, partially because of the IS and partially because of the weight and extra range. I doubt I'd have the IS switched on all the time though as it drains more battery power, maybe for about 20% of the shots.

Sorry for the rambing post but I'm trying to give an impression of how I feel about IS

[senu]

We did that one to death
HERE
Another one
IS: In camera, or in lens?

[philaitman]

Are IS/VR lenses really much more expensive?
Canon 55-200 IS = £209
Nikon 55-200 VR = £179
Pentax = 50-200mm = £169
Closest Olympus 40-150 = £189

Nifty Fifties are a canny bit cheaper for Canon and Nikon too.
It's hard to buy a bad body these day's but Canon and Nikon offer a lifetime of lenses to grow into, even before you take the 3rd party offerings into account.

[Yandros]

I must admit that I'm a big fan of my VR lenses, as they free me from using a tripod much of the time, or more importantly allow me to get shots at all in places where tripods/flash are a no-no.

In the 18-55ish range, the big advantage is low light shooting - as long as it's still life. At 18mm, 1/8th second shutter speed is sharp about 50% of the time for me - which means low light interiors like churches and museums are a pushover.

With zoom lenses at 200mm or more, the shutter speed you need is often more to do with keeping the lens steady than stopping the action, so VR allows you to drop a couple of notches of shutter speed there too. Doesn't help one iota of course if it's a really fast moving subject.

If you don't think you'll shoot stuff in low light, don't worry too much about VR on the kit lens, but it's a lifesaver on the long zooms.

Incidentally I had a good play with a friends new Pentax K10D yesterday, and I reckon I'd take a D80 in preference. Nikon build and ergonomics take a lot of beating, but you do pay for the privilege I'm afraid.

[senu]

Originally Posted by philaitman

Are IS/VR lenses really much more expensive?
.

They used to be
And the advocates of cameras with built-in stabilisation wasted no time in letting "CorN" owners feel ripped off

Have a look at the linked threads in my last post.

I have 2 lenses with IS and a few without and the IS is very handy but being cackhanded I still manage to get blur with them and as if miraculously get sharp images with the non IS lenses
Seriously, i would rather have it than not but it will not prevent blurred shots if you don't remember how it works and where not to rely on it

[Pirate!!]

How much are you prepared to pay for IS lenses? There is no RIGHT answer to your question. One option will be far more expensive than the other, and both will give similar results.

I and others have gone in-body with OIS. Others have gone in-lens. Suffice to say, I couldn't afford OIS in-lens. At least in-body, all my lenses are OIS stabilised.

Look, it's a matter of personal choice. I made mine, others made theirs. No-one is wrong, but my budget isn't as big as others, so I went with in-body. A personal thing. Don't forget, there are a number of 'new kids on the block' right now. Do the research. I don't want to be accused of favourtism.

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by Pirate!!

How much are you prepared to pay for IS lenses? There is no RIGHT answer to your question. One option will be far more expensive than the other, and both will give similar results.

I and others have gone in-body with OIS. Others have gone in-lens. Suffice to say, I couldn't afford OIS in-lens. At least in-body, all my lenses are OIS stabilised.

Look, it's a matter of personal choice. I made mine, others made theirs. No-one is wrong, but my budget isn't as big as others, so I went with in-body. A personal thing. Don't forget, there are a number of 'new kids on the block' right now. Do the research. I don't want to be accused of favourtism.

Well said that man

[senu]

Pirate , there is no accusing going on here..

IS is great, whether as Built in or In lens
As one who has used the A100 , I have only good things to say about it
However those who stick with their preferred brands and pay for IS lenses are equally happy with their choices. We had a similar debate before and it is clear that cameras will not become clones with all suddenly having all features

Even without IS I think the Sony A100 is.. however I think it is so inspite of , and not because of built in IS and that is just ( as they say) Icing on the cake

I think Each camera should be judged on its own merits ..
But I think you have given the OP an answer.. ie there is no right one!!

[Brammers]

If we're going to be objective, let's get our facts right.

in camera IS is a great idea but it has drawbacks too: cant see the stabalised image in the viewfinder

True.

, heat buildup on the sensor

This is nonsense.

and IMO it gets less effective at longer focal lengths where you need it.

This is totally unproven and, objectively speaking, appears to depend massively on the lens/body/user combo. Very quickly, the argument is that when using long focal lengths (300mm plus) the sensor would have to move so far to catch all the movement that it would become totally ineffective. In practise, the sensor has to move around 0.05mm to catch shake on a 1200mm lens - this is nothing.

Doesnt help if the sunbect is moving,

This is true.

doesnt help on a tripod (well mebe panning/mode 2).

A tripod is one of the finest forms of image stabilisation known to man, and I can't see why you'd want to supplment that with some gyros.

(edit - Final point of consideration, in-body IS takes much less battery power than lens based IS - there's much less weight to shift around.)

For what it's worth, combining in-body IS with wide aperture prime lenses has given me shots that I believe to be technically impossible using Canon/Nikon systems without ISOs of 6400+ on those systems. (Edit - or tripods)

Also for what it's worth, would you buy a camera without auto-exposure or auto-focus anymore? Times move on, technologies become standard. CorN are currently paying the price for hanging onto their legacy technology from 35mm film days.

And finally, for what it's worth, the cover shot for a magazine I took last month made no use of image stabilisation whatsoever.

[senu]

And finally, for what it's worth, the cover shot for a magazine I took last month made no use of image stabilisation whatsoever...

You didn't use it because you didn't need to
Thats why they have an "off" switch
And also why tripods exist!

As I hinted in one post above we have done this to death before.. The merits of this thread are to let the OP be aware that the question of IS or no IS and whether in lens or in body are far from a simple Yes or no

[Yandros]

Good points Brammers. The lack of an accurate VR test is a royal pain in the backside.

Philaitman did some debunking of the "VR lenses are more expensive" myth. Let's carry on...

Sony 16-80mm F3.5-4.5 ZA Vario-Sonnar T £549
Nikon 16-85mm AF-S DX f/3.5-5.6G ED VR £429

Sony 100mm F2.8 Macro (D) £599
Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR Macro £498

Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G £1759
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G AF VR £1148

Sony DT 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 (D) £349
Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX VR IF ED £450

Sony 24-105mm F3.5-4.5 £399
Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S VR IF ED £415

Sony DT 75-300mm F4.5-5.6 (D) £175
Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G AF-S VR IF £330

Some of those Sony prices are pretty stratospheric, even by Nikon standards , and you don't get many bargains on the primes. (granted though Nikon short primes aren't stabilised!). The budget lens prices still mostly favour Sony, but the gap isn't ridiculously wide in some cases.

[Brammers]

Yandros, this is an oft cited argument. However, noone in their right mind would pay those prices for the Sony lenses - they may be RRP and they may sell for that in places like Jessops, but that's merely a side effect of being a new camera company. Check out the US prices - already slashed in the big retailers. To give you an idea, the RRP for the Zeiss 135 1.8 is £1100, I paid £650 to my door.

I'm not going through all of those, but let's show you quickly what you can get each for - all prices delivered from reputable suppliers:

Sony 16-80mm F3.5-4.5 ZA Vario-Sonnar T £549 - actual price £350
Nikon 16-85mm AF-S DX f/3.5-5.6G ED VR £429

Sony 100mm F2.8 Macro (D) £599 - actual price £350
Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR Macro £498

Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G £1759 - actual price £1100
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G AF VR £1148

Sony DT 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 (D) £349
Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX VR IF ED £450

These are not like for like - the Nikon is a better lens. The 18-200 has also been replaced by the 18-250.

Sony DT 75-300mm F4.5-5.6 (D) £175
Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G AF-S VR IF £330

Again, not like for like - the Sony is a budget kit lens that really goes for around £120ish. Look to the new Sony G for a fairer comparison.

Anyway, here's the counter argument:

Sony - Sigma 20mm 1.8 IS - £180 2nd hand
Nikon - doesn't exist

Sony - Minolta 35mm f2 IS - £150 2nd hand
Nikon - doesn't exist

Sony - Minolta 50mm f1.4 IS - £125 2nd hand
Nikon - doesn't exist

Sony - Minolta 58mm f1.2 IS - £100 2nd hand
Nikon - doesn't exist

Sony - Carl Zeiss 135 f1.8 IS - £650 new
Nikon - doesn't exist

And then we've got the huge argument of:

Sony - Sigma 70-200 2.8 IS - £600
Nikon - Sigma 70-200 2.8 IS - doesn't exist

and that list goes on for a lot longer

[Brammers]

Oh - I think this should also be said.

Were Nikon (especially) or Canon to offer in-body stabilisation, I'd be over like a shot.