[TimSummers]

I'm going to purchase my first DSLR in the not so distant future. I've got my short list of the models that I can choose from.

Does anyone have any advice the can offer me regarding:

a) Should I buy a camera with image stabalisation and use the standard kit lense (and build up various lenses throughout time) ?

or

b) Should I buy a camera without image stabalisation, but then buy a lense (and all future lenses) with the image stabailsation in that ?

What are the pro's and cons of either ?

[Iccz]

Originally Posted by TimSummers

I'm going to purchase my first DSLR in the not so distant future. I've got my short list of the models that I can choose from.

Does anyone have any advice the can offer me regarding:

a) Should I buy a camera with image stabalisation and use the standard kit lense (and build up various lenses throughout time) ?

or

b) Should I buy a camera without image stabalisation, but then buy a lense (and all future lenses) with the image stabailsation in that ?

What are the pro's and cons of either ?

Hi Tim,

There are no silly questions here!

In order to help, it would be best if you described your requirements for photography, so what kind of photography are you going to be taking?

There's quite a lot of argument about which is best... Canon/Nikon argue that optically stabilised lenses give better stabilisation than moving sensor body based systems. Claiming that each lens can be fine tuned accordingly.
Another benefit here is the image is stabilised through the viewfinder.

With the body you have the advantage of any lens you use being stabilised, no matter how old or new it is. I also believe that wide angle primes do not come with IS (someone please confirm or correct me on this). Another is that you only have to pay for the IS once.

[eddiewood]

One of the reasons I went for Sony is due to the in-body IS.

It has meant that I have been able to buy second-hand Tamron/Sigma/Minolta lenses and take advantage of them being stabilised. IS makes a big difference in low light for me.

[OrbitalPete]

Bear in mind that IS is by no means always useful and can even ruin a shot if it's left on in the wrong situation.

Wide lenses (below about 80mm in my opinion) have very little to benefit from IS in any situation. IS will allow you to shoot in low light better, but you will still be using slow shutter speeds so any movement in the frame (people for example) will still blur.

IS is also not any good if you're trying to track moving objects - e.g. wildlife

Finally (and perhaps most importantly) IS is of absolutely no use on a tripod and will knacker the shot up for you.

IS is fine if you're shooting handheld all the time with lowish shutter speeds. However, I certainly very rarely find myself in a situation where I would want to use IS (by which I mean I miss a shot because I can't compensate in other ways - e.g. upping the ISO). now that might just be down to my photographic style, but basically - don't go rushing off and blowing all your cash on IS lenses before working out whether you actually want that feature or not.

[Strobe]

Having used both in-body and in-lens image stabilisation systems pretty extensively (2 years with Sony and 6 months with Nikon) I honestly wouldn't let it affect my buying decision. Both are equally effective, but there are pro's and cons for each - principal ones being all lenses stabilised for in-body and stable view-finder image for in-lens. IMO, camera ergonomics would feature far more in more buying decision.

[Jammyb]

Originally Posted by OrbitalPete

Finally (and perhaps most importantly) IS is of absolutely no use on a tripod and will knacker the shot up for you.

I've seen this said before. Can you clarify a little? I can understand that it's not really needed when using a tripod, but I can't see how it would ruin a shot.

[Iccz]

Originally Posted by Jammyb

I've seen this said before. Can you clarify a little? I can understand that it's not really needed when using a tripod, but I can't see how it would ruin a shot.

It can add a blur because the system is looking for the vibrations or movement but is unable to find any (or not up to the levels in which the IS kicks in) the IS might still be moving and trying to look for movement and can cause the image to become blurred, any camera that comes with IS does specify in the manual that it is advised to turn off the IS function when using a tripod.
Though tripod detection was introduced to a lot of cameras in recent years I believe...

[OrbitalPete]

Basically IS includes an automatic correction for shutter release vibration. You don't get that on tripods, so the counter vibration added by the IS actually just adds vibration to an otherwise static image.

Some lenses do have tripod detection built in, but I don't know how effective it is.

[Iccz]

Article on it here:
Image Stabilization on Tripods

[eddiewood]

The Sony manual states that it should be off on a tripod. Leaving IS on has never affected my tripod images though, I sometimes forget to turn it off.

I get a lot of benefit from IS from all lenses, regardless of focal length and lighting conditions. I have no idea what is meant by lenses less than 80mm having little benefit, it definitely makes a difference for me.

I wouldn't do without IS, it WOULD influence my next purchase. The OP is quite right to have it listed as ONE of their key requirements.

[dazza74]

Originally Posted by eddiewood

The OP is quite right to have it listed as ONE of their key requirements.

Not for me. Only lens I have that I really need it for is the 70-300mm. Not sure what's going on with the capitals in your post, did your cap locks button get stuck or something

[Strobe]

Originally Posted by eddiewood

I wouldn't do without IS, it WOULD influence my next purchase. The OP is quite right to have it listed as ONE of their key requirements.

Don't get me wrong, I feel IS is invaluable, I just wouldn't let it affect my decision on buying which make/model of camera.
Lenses are another matter ...

[MrCynical]

Originally Posted by Iccz

With the body you have the advantage of any lens you use being stabilised, no matter how old or new it is. I also believe that wide angle primes do not come with IS (someone please confirm or correct me on this). Another is that you only have to pay for the IS once.

IIRC no Canon/Nikon primes (or the other manufacturers' for that matter) come with optical IS built in. The only way to get an IS prime is to go with one of the in-body IS brands (Sony, Pentax, all 4/3 brands etc.)

[senu]

Originally Posted by MrCynical

IIRC no Canon/Nikon primes (or the other manufacturers' for that matter) come with optical IS built in. The only way to get an IS prime is to go with one of the in-body IS brands (Sony, Pentax, all 4/3 brands etc.)

I think that is ( exactly) what was he was trying to say..

[p1tse]

definately usefull. i've seen shots with it on and off on a large focal range and with it off it isn't as sharp

but if you're not shooting long distance without is fine i would say

[TimSummers]

Originally Posted by Iccz

Hi Tim,

There are no silly questions here!

In order to help, it would be best if you described your requirements for photography, so what kind of photography are you going to be taking?

To be totally honest at this very moment in time I'm not 100% sure what my photography requirements are going to be. Previously I've just been a compact camera user taking a wide variety of shots, you know, just the general holiday scenes, family members, family get togethers etc. Just general photos I guess.

I've always been interested in photography as my Grandfather was a photographer years and years ago and it always fascinated me when I were a nipper going into his dark room and seeing all his pictures. To date, I've just not progressed any further. Now I'm that bit older, got all my studying out of the way etc. I want something else to get my teeth into.

I live in Cambridge, so at the moment my starting point will probably be around the architecture of the colleges, the surrounding areas (the fens, the rivers to see what's around there), but nothing too specific. I wouldn't have thought that I'd ever get into portrate photography.

My son plays football regularly so I wouldn't mind trying my hand at some sort of sports photography.

Thanks everyone else who's contributed into this thread, there's some good information posted.

FYI - The cameras that I think that I'm going to end up choosing one from are:

1) Cannon EOS 450D
2) Nikon D5000 (if I can get it for around £550)

ps. The Pentax K-M and the Olympus E-520 have recently caught my eye since a trip to my local camera shop whilst on a scouting mission. For a new DSLR user would I be better off with something like this. I mean for £100/150 less that my 2 choices would I notice the difference in the pictures that I'm going to take, considering I'm not a professional / wedding / events photographer (yet lol)

[neilos100]

Bobs yer uncle! Jessops are doing the D5000 with an 18-55mm VR lens for £529........a bargain! Nikon D5000 + 18-55mm VR Lens - Jessops

Neil

[Pirate!!]

Originally Posted by neilos100

Bobs yer uncle! Jessops are doing the D5000 with an 18-55mm VR lens for £529........a bargain! Nikon D5000 + 18-55mm VR Lens - Jessops

Neil

More of a bargain is that TopcashBack do 7% cashback for Jessops across the range. Check Quidco as well, but there are savings to be had if you're a savvy shopper.

[eddiewood]

Originally Posted by neilos100

Bobs yer uncle! Jessops are doing the D5000 with an 18-55mm VR lens for £529........a bargain! Nikon D5000 + 18-55mm VR Lens - Jessops

Neil

For that you can get the Sony A330 twin lens bundle with 4Gb card!

Sony Alpha 330 Twin Lens Bundle - Jessops

The Sony A330 is only £399 and is a great camera.

[paulyoung666]

and may not feel right in the OP's hands the same as Sony and Nikon didnt in mine !! , well worth handling them all and then making a decision not solely on price