[max11]

Hi everyone,
I was about to buy my first DSLR, a canon d40 + the 17-85 kit lens, as I enjoy using the canon compact cameras.

Then I wondered if it is more convenient to buy a DSLR with a built-in stabilizer, instead of lenses with IS later.
I found the following cameras with that feature: Pentax, Sony and Olympus E-520.

1-do you agree with my idea?
2-Which one do you recommend me, as a similar level as canon d40?
exspecially based on available lenses and quality/price ratio?

As I said, this is my first dslr and I like to take panoramas, portraits and group photos.

Thank you fpr your help

[cedmondson]

It's a thorny question as it tends to polarise opinion.

Those in favour of in-body stabilisation argue that it's more cost-effective in the long run as it stabilises all your lenses in one go.
However, the opposing view is that in-lens stabilisation is more effective, giving you 3-4 stops of stabilisation compared to 1-2 stops from an in-body system.
Obviously though it is potentially more expensive if you end up buying lots of stabilised lenses.

[Mike.P®]

Depends on how much you intend on spending in the long run.
Look at the prices of IS lenses for Canon and Nikon then decide if you are ever likely to pay that sort of money on a lens in the future.
If so then no problem.


I have a Pentax and the inbuilt IS is pretty good but so is the Sony and Olympus system I would think.

[chrism_scotland]

I certainly find the in body IS of my Alpha 300 to be good, its no match for using a monopod and I can certainly imagine a tripod would be much better but its good to have.

[max11]

Thank you everyone.
Yes the key point is how many lens I will buy.

As I am not that expert, I cannot compare. I found this good website
Which lens will I be likely to buy in the future, for a normal use (panoramas, monuments and portraits. also country sunday excursions)

I try to hypotesize:
-50mm for portraits
-a zoom: which one? 70-200? (I know the Nikon 18-200 is the best in his type)
-105 mm macro ? (for my job)

thank you

[Pirate!!]

IS really only comes into it's own at LOWER shutter speeds (say 1/80 and under). Whilst I'm probably right in thinking that lens stabilsed lenses are powered by the camera's battery, they'll likely to be 'always on' system (unless they have an OFF button). I've never used them, so don't know.

A basic 'rule of thumb' is to multiply the focal length by the camera crop factor (Sony is 1.5x), so for example, if shooting with a 300mm lens at 300mm x 1.5 = 1/450 sec shutter speed for regular unstabilised lens/bodies. And at that speed, you really don't need IS, so I usually switch it off. I find it a very nice feature not having to think to much when left on or worrying about if the shutter speed is to slow or if there's enough light in relation to aperture selected. Personally, it works for me (but then I'm a cheapskate).

Rules might alter for stabilised lenses, but for the in-body system, you can leave the system on, but be sure to turn it OFF if using a tripod or if on a stable platform (a wall for example) as you'll screw-up the internal IS system.

Not much (if anything) to choose between either variants other than the cost of glass. It's much the the same, but different!