[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.

[Yandros]

Actually I played the game fairly (and this is just a bit of fun of course). All the prices for Nikon and Sony came from Warehouseexpress (apart from the new Nikon 16-85), who are normally pretty middle of the road. The Nikon prices are also over the odds.

My point is that there are a probably a lot of misconceptions all round (eg in-lens is better but more expensive). Fair play also to Sony, Pentax and co, because it's their aggressive price/feature attack on the market that has forced Canon and Nikon to respond with sensible priced VR products.

[senu]

A lot of hard and useful information Guys,

( although some of the Nikon lenses which Brammers has pointed out dont exist , do for Canon..)

What I would kindly request is that we try to stay close to the Topic without straying into Sony vs CorN as much as possible

The very valuable points you guys have raised get obscured when the "pride
of ownership" issues begin

[Brammers]

( although some of the Nikon lenses which Brammers has pointed out dont exist , do for Canon..)

No they don't. The point is that on Sony they're IS lenses. Canon don't have IS primes below 300mm - unless you count the 200/2 at however many thousand pounds.

The very valuable points you guys have raised get obscured when the "pride
of ownership" issues begin

See where my "pride" is with my comment on which system I'd own if everyone had built-in IS.

All the prices for Nikon and Sony came from Warehouseexpress

Unfortunately Warehouseexpress just aren't good for Sony - you need to shop around a little. They also have the Zeiss at £1045 - as I said I saved a good £400 on that price. I think you'll find that with the correct supplier you'll find a lot of IS bargains with an in-body system - and to be honest most of these come from Tamron and Sigma. How much do CorNers have to pay to get a stabilised 17-55? Sure - 2 cracking lenses, but £660 for the Canon one (Warehouse Express, seeing as we're using them) when Sony and Pentax users can get a selection for under £300? Same with 70-300s - 50-200s, Bigmas...

Anyway, unless someone else posts something that simply has to be disproven (such as Yandros' list of prices, I'm now off to find the most over-priced Nikon stockist I can :P), that'll be my last post on the matter.

[senu]

As an aside ( and maybe off Topic) . How many of us will still have our curent kit in 5 years time, given the way technology is moving?
Just suppose CorN decides ( in the Spirit of "never say Never" ) to actually do in body IS??

[loz]

Originally Posted by 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.

What you are highlighting is Sony UK's rip off lens prices.

Unfortunately not every one likes importing expensive consumer electronics because of fears about warranties (founded or not).

So, they look at the Sony UK lens prices and scratch their heads, "how can a Sony non-IS lens be more expensive than a Canikon IS lens?"

[Liquid101]

Image Stabilisation - How Important ??

I'm not sure exactly what people use it for to be honest. I've managed for the last 15 years without it, and can't think of too many shots i've missed. I've had a play with it in its various forms, and while it does have some novelty factor for the first 15 minutes, if you're vaguely serious about your photography, when you need a stable camera, you'll use a tripod.

Seems strange to me that those people interested enough in the medium to spend 1-2k on a Body and VR/IS lens combo, but not interested enough to carry a tripod when they might need one.

Brammers, really enjoyed reading your list of fast primes which benefit from your cameras built in IS. Do think there is a reason that Nikon and Canon don't make VR/IS versions of theirs?

Originally Posted by Brammers

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

Subtle

[Brammers]

Good questions Senu.

How many of us will still have our curent kit in 5 years time

Hmmmmmmmmmm... I think my lens lineup is pretty much sorted. I can see myself replacing all my wide primes with a 24-70 2.8 one day, but that's very expensive and will need a full frame camera - so maybe within 5 years. The 135 is staying. As a point of interest, my 58mm lens was made in the 60s, and all my other lenses with the exception of my Zeiss are over 5 years old.

My body is already 3 years old - it's got life in it yet. 6mp is still enough

Just suppose CorN decides 9 in the Spirit of "never say Never"to actually do in body IS??

Were I to start over, with CorN with in-body stabilisation, I'd go Nikon, then Canon, then Sony, then Pentax, then Oly.

However, the expense of ditching a load of kit that I'm perfectly happy with would probably stop me from jumping just because of that feature. So everything would have to be 'stolen' first :P

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by Brammers

How much do CorNers have to pay to get a stabilised 17-55?

Now that's just rubbing salt in the wound ! No Nikon 17-55 f2.8 VR yet

Senu - good question. One of the reasons I went with Nikon is their legendary backward compatibility. Note the howls of protest from Nikonites at the radical (for Nikon) step of dropping non AFS lens support! Sony in particular has a lot more money to throw around and a less entrenched user base, so is likely to be a lot faster moving.

[Brammers]

Seems strange to me that those people interested enough in the medium to spend 1-2k on a Body and VR/IS lens combo, but not interested enough to carry a tripod when they might need one.

Times when tripods aren't allowed/aren't practical Liquid. We're not talking about 30second hand held exposures, we're talking about letting you eek every little bit of sharpness out of a slow shutter speed. To give a quick example I shot a DJ set from the press pit the other week - the lighting was atrocious. Magazine editor stipulated ISO 800 max - he's a stickler for noise. I wasn't allowed on stage and the DJ was a good 7-8m meters away. The shot that got chosen was hand held, ISO800, 135mm 1.5x crop, f1.8 1/60second. As I said, there's several shots in my portfolio which I honestly don't believe I'd have been able to shoot with a Canon and a Nikon - relying on either an unstabilised 135 f2 or a stabilised 70-200 2.8.

Brammers, really enjoyed reading your list of fast primes which benefit from your cameras built in IS. Do think there is a reason that Nikon and Canon don't make VR/IS versions of theirs?

Thought you would - sometimes a point needs making :X Hope I didn't waste too much of your life. I dunno - going to bat that one back at you. They think it's not needed? Neither put IS in their 24-70 2.8 zoom either do they? And Nikon's is brand new. I'd aim somewhere towards a combination of technical difficulty (how big are IS mechanisms? Might add a lot to the size, weight and cost of a 50, which is known for being small, cheap and light), the fact that they don't see a need, the fact that they've got better things to make at the moment and the fact that they don't see much profit in it.

And I'd like to make it clear that my statement about not posting in this thread because all has been said and done doesn't apply to this post - because these are plainly new and interesting avenues that have been opened up :P

[lloydy53]

Pentax has the stabilisation in the body, so the lens is free of expensive bits.

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by Liquid101

I'm not sure exactly what people use it for to be honest. I've managed for the last 15 years without it, and can't think of too many shots i've missed. I've had a play with it in its various forms, and while it does have some novelty factor for the first 15 minutes, if you're vaguely serious about your photography, when you need a stable camera, you'll use a tripod.

Seems strange to me that those people interested enough in the medium to spend 1-2k on a Body and VR/IS lens combo, but not interested enough to carry a tripod when they might need one.

Liquid, we managed for years with rolls of film with 24 exposures, 50mm manual focus lens, and grainy 400 ISO too.

VR is just another tool, just like a tripod, or high ISO or fast glass. Each has pros and cons. If you've not come across locations where tripods and flash are either not permitted or are totally impractical, you've done very well.

(woohoo back on topic at last )

I like to think that I take my photography seriously, but sometimes you have to compromise. I was very happy with my handheld macro stuff from Beth Chatto's garden a while back. My long suffering girlfriend eventually retreated to the tea room with a book, as I messed around getting the shots I wanted, but it wasn't too bad for her. Had I insisted on setting up a tripod for every shot she would've killed me. So, take partner for day out with VR lens, or take tripod?

[SomeVorn]

Can someone clarify something for me? Now I'm not sure if this is correct but - isn't the D3 high ISO tech and the VR offered in its competition directly related? Why shoot at 1/16 second with VR when you can shoot at 1/250 with a high ISO without noticable negative effects on your images?

I don't own either VR or a D3 so I can't really comment. But as I understand it, I'd rather have a D3 over IS/VR in camera.

Basically I'm saying more sensitive sensors are possibly an alternative to IS. And if you really want to argue that "you want to catch movement", "I want to get motion blur" etc with a slower shutter speed, then use a tripod like every photographer has for the last 50 years. IS and VR aren't that good yet (although someone posted a silky stream over the past week or so that looked alright).

I don't think Canon or Nikon should be criticised or applauded for not jumping on the in camera IS bandwagon - but IMO the D3 indicates a different direction that offers the same solution as VR for many difficult light situations and a lot more.

[Yandros]

Actually SomeVorn they're complementary technologies, not competing.

VR is preferable if you can get away with it though. I can get pin-sharp 100 ISO handheld macros with VR on at 1/20th second and 105mm. With VR off, I'd need to bump the ISO to about 400 or more, and would lose some image quality. So, if the VR has the shake well under control, it's a better soluton than high ISO, which ALWAYS introduces some grain into the picture. Even if I have to take 'best of 3' with VR, it's a better option than high ISO when you have the time and a static subject.

Now when the going gets REALLY tough...say shooting in extremely low light, you can bring every trick in the book into play. Bump the ISO to 1600, AND VR, AND fast f2.8 glass . Given killer combos like a D3 and VRII , photographers just up the ante again regarding what they can shoot.

[RobDickinson]

Originally Posted by Brammers

This is nonsense.

No its not, my KM A2 had this issue, same system as Sony use now on their dSLR's, visibly affected pictures.

KM A2 p37 of the manual (online):

"If the yellow or white warnings appears, place the camera on a tripod, use the built-in flash,
increase the camera sensitivity (ISO) (p. 74), or use a wide-angle zoom position. If the Anti-shake
indicator turns red, the camera is overheating because of operating and ambient temperatures.
The Anti-shake system will turn off automatically. Allow the camera to cool before using Antishake.
The Anti-shake system is less effective at short subject distances or when using the macro function
(p. 49). The use of a tripod is recommended. Anti-shake is not effective with a tripod mounted
camera; turn off the Anti-shake function to conserve power."

[leaky5]

This Cameralabs Youtube clip shows the Olympus E510 with and with out IS. Go approx 5 minutes into the clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8_VFgrTaxk