Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 19, 2006, 3:19 PM   #21
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529

NHL wrote:
In-body IS works fine with 500mm lens or more (700mm @ 1/40s here - i.e. 3 to 4-stops):
-> i.e. only Canon (or Nikon) die-hards are telling each other that it won't work for longer telephoto lenses
(if you follow the previous link there's even another example with the Tamron 200-500 with a kenko 2x extender)

Without weighing in on whether in-lens is actually better, 2 shots don't really prove anything - it's hardly 'PROOF'. I'm willing to bet you could find 2 shots that were hand-held without any IS that look good. You, yourself have claimed great hand-held shots with 120-300 2.8 and TC and you weren't using any type of IS. So by your logic above (that one or 2 shots proves the fact) then IS is useless - after all you have some shots that were hand-held without it. I just don't see anything scientific here that illustrates that the affect is better, worse or the same as the same type of shot with in-lens IS. And, in all honesty, that's the question being debated. A relative comparison of the 2 technologies. Not, "Is in body good" but rather "is in-body AS GOOD AS in lens".

Personally, I'd love to believe in-body IS is as good -but those links don't even try to make a comparison between the two they merely demonstrate that one individual was able to get a siingle shot hand held.

I real scientific study needs to show one system clearly breaks down before the other or they both break down at the same point. And, you would need a mechanical device to 'hold' the camera rather than a human so you had a controlled amount of shake. Without a test similar to that - both sides are going to argue the point they WISH were true (i.e. Canon and Nikon die-hards who invested in IS/VR lenses willargue in-body IS is bad and people with Sony/Pentax cameras or canon/nikon owners with a collection of non-IS/VR lenses will argue that it is just as good).

And so far I haven't seen any legit scientific test that proves or disproves in-body IS is as good as in Lens.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 19, 2006, 3:29 PM   #22
Senior Member
NHL's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,567

AlpineMan wrote:
I'm saying, the further away you get from the body, the better the IS works. So this means, having the IS on the lens makes a more effective IS. No?
It depends on how you hold the lens...
On longer lens I tend to support/hold the lens @ the center of gravity (close to the tripod collar) so if this was a balancing point then I would argue that the camera body would move more than the lens which is closer to the fulcrum point - No?


It 's not just thoses three links - just google the respective Pentax/Sony/Minolta forums and there'll be an abundance of in-body IS examples - I'm just saying that a Canon forum is bound to be biais against the competitions in general
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 19, 2006, 3:53 PM   #23
Senior Member
AlpineMan's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 357

holding the lens further away from the body to better stabilize it adds to my reasoning why having the IS on the lens is more effective than having it on the body.
AlpineMan is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:44 AM.