In-Lens vs. In-Camera Vibration Control

[frankie_frank1]

<p>Both Nikon and Canon use in-lens vibration reduction or image stablization. Sony uses in-camera anti-shake. Which technology is better? I am sure they both have some advantages and disadvantages.</p>

[epp_b]

<p>They each basically have one advantage where the other has a disadvantage:</p>

<p>With in-lens IS/VR, you can "see" the stabilization occurring and shoot accordingly, but, obviously, you only get IS/VR in the lenses that implement the feature. Since it has to be implemented in each lens, it does add a bit to the cost. Also, some older Nikon bodies cannot "drive" VR (though that's probably moot point).</p>

<p>In-body "anti-shake" works by moving the sensor around, so you cannot see the stabilization occuring, but it functions with any lens you can mount on the body. Some bodies have a display of some sort in the viewfinder telling you how active the anti-shake is. I have read that some anti-shake implementations cheat by bumping up ISO to allow for faster shutter speeds, but I cannot confirm this myself.</p>

<p>For me, it's got to be the in-lens IS/VR. Being able able see it happening is worth the extra cost to me.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>I find I can't really see the difference when looking in the viewfinder - it usully requires me to to zoom in on the image in playback. I use Nikon but I'd rather they had used the Sony/Pentax system. However, there's one other advantage - there are film cameras that can use Nikon's VR, if you're into that kind of thing.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>In-lens stabilization is optimized for the peculiarities and typical use of <em>that lens</em>. In-camera stabilization doesn't make the best possible corrections for every lens that's mounted... but of course it makes a better correction than a lens without that feature. <br /><br />All things considered, I prefer it in the lens. My reading on the subject suggests that, especially on the longer lenses, you're buying yourself another stop of slower shutter speed with in-lens correction. But you're paying for it with a more complex lens, and for owning more than one instance of the technology.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Much discussed, hotly argued, little light (<a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00SPDX">link</a> )</p>

[mrraz]

<p>I've got Olympus internal IS in my E-510. It will take any lens and compensate including old OM lenses. It gains me 2 stops in shutter speed for all lenses. It works by adjusting the amount sensor compensation for each lens that's 4/3. Old manual lenses are entered manually, but it works the same way.</p>

<p>I'll go with the internal system over the long haul.</p>

[kari v]

<blockquote>

<p>I have read that some anti-shake implementations cheat by bumping up ISO to allow for faster shutter speeds, but I cannot confirm this myself.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Some point and shoots have that "feature".</p>

[akajohndoe]

Indeed they do, quite a few of them in fact. I've had hands-on on a fair number that advertised anti-shake, image stabilzation, or the like, but I could find no evidence of any such technology. What I did find was the ISO getting bumped up. Way up in many cases. False advertising in my book.

[profhlynnjones]

<p>Turn if off when you mount your camera on a tripod, you get a built in shake.</p>

<p>Lynn</p>