Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 6, 2006, 10:36 AM   #1
Violet sky's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 40

As you probably know, optical stabilization is when there's a prism in the lens that is moved so it projects the image correctly on the sensor even when the camera is shaking.
Anti-shake is, instead, when the sensor is mounted on a movable platform and it moves as the camera shakes.

So: which is better? Minolta says anti-shake is superior, but since nobody considers their digicams a miracle I'm kinda suspicious...
Violet sky is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 6, 2006, 6:43 PM   #2
JohnG's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529

You're going to get a lot of opinions on which is better. A benefit of the in-camera is that it makes every lens anti-shake.

Some benefits of in-lens are the image in optical viewfinder is steady.

There is also the question of how well in-body IS works on longer telephoto lenses - even the review of the Sony alpha over at DP Review still questions this aspect. It's an unknown and the longer the lens the more beneficial IS really is.

I think we'll have a much better idea after a year with the Sony alpha for people to really give it a workout with long/heavy glass where it's affectivenes will either be proved or disproved.
JohnG 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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:29 AM.