Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 10, 2006, 5:24 PM   #1
Junior Member
himanshu1khatri's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1

hi ther...

i have one HUGE question .......:?

sony keesp claiming it has put the image stablization system in the camera itself thus the lenses dunt need to be image stablized......what does it mean for a customer??.....does it mean ill spend less on lenses as the lenses dunt have imagestablization??.....infact do lesnses come in two catagoreis ...stablised and non stablised.....and if they do what is the cost diffence in percentage costs (for most lenses)??

yes i am an amatuer.......else id know better already :-p..........thanx in advance for any inputs........
himanshu1khatri is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 10, 2006, 7:21 PM   #2
JimC's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378

What that means is that you can take photos with a stablized solution at around 1/4 to 1/8 the shutter speed you can with a non-stablized lens and still get a sharp photo (given equivalent ISO speed, lighting and aperture).

The "rule of thumb" for hand holding a camera is that shutter speed should be 1/focal length.

In other words, if shooting at a focal length of 50mm, you would normally want shutter speeds of 1/50 second or faster. Or, if shooting at 100mm, you'd normally want shutter speeds of 1/100 second or faster, etc.

A Stablized Solution (either body based or in lens) is designed to give you a 2 to 3 stop improvement (and each stop means shutter speeds twice as long)..

So, if you tried to shoot with a 100mm lens in light requiring 1/25 second for proper exposure, you could do that with a stablized lens. With a non-stablized lens, you'd probably need a tripod (since you'd want to have shutter speeds of around 1/100 second or faster without a tripod).

The "rule of thumb" is just that... a rule of thumb. Some people can hold a camera steadier than others, and some people may need even faster shutter speeds to prevent blur from camera shake.

But, with stablization, you can use 2 to 3 stops slower shutter speeds than you could without a tripod, based on how steady you can hold a camera.

That's a big difference.

Stabilization won't help with blur from subject movement. But, you can have more blur from camera shake when shutter speeds get slow (as they can in less than optimum lighting, or when you want to use smaller apertures for more depth of field).

With stablization built into the camera, all of your lenses benefit (including inexpensive zooms, bright primes, macro lenses, etc.). With a stablized lens solution, you have a limited number of lenses that are available (forget bright normal primes, etc.), and stablized lenses usually cost much more compared to similar lenses without this feature).

Check out prices for Canon IS (Image Stablization), and Nikon VR (Vibration Reduction) lenses in comparison to their lenses without it (and they don't even offer a lot of lenses with it, like the bright primes that become stablized on a KM or Sony DSLR).

For example, a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L with IS (Image Stabilization) sells for $1,699 at B&H. The Canon 70-200mm f.2.8L without stablization sells for $1,139 at B&H. That's more than $500 difference (and that's just for one lens).

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 10, 2006, 7:22 PM   #3
Senior Member
DrChris's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 107

Yes...Himanshu1Khatri, you have it right. Konica-Minolta was the first with Anti-Shake (IS) in the body. From my understanding, Sony simply renamed that technology when they bought out KM's DSLR operation.

Pentax is already following suit with body IS and I'm pretty sure the other manufacturers will also.

I'm certainly no expert in this area, but I learned a lot in this forum when I was researching my KM 5D. Got some great deals on used lenses before the feeding frenzy. But I wonder if there are still Minolta film cameras out there that haven't come to the used market yet, for whatever reason. When they do, the owners might not know what they're worth because KM is gone and unless they follow the news closely, might not know that their lenses are compatible with SOny's Alpha.

Maybe a scenario like this will play out: Somebody decides to "go digital" and sells his obsolete film Maxxum and three lenses on E-Bay for pennies on the dollar because after all, who would want a used film camera anyway? Probably wishfull thinking!?!

I got my Maxxum 50mm 1.7 for about 30 bucks, but I had to buy an older Maxxum film body with it. When searching e-bay, look for film cameras with lenses...not just lenses.

Good Luck!
DrChris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2006, 7:45 AM   #4
Senior Member
Technophile's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 120

The Nikon and Canon brigade would claim that IS in the lens is more effective. I'm not sure that there's any scientificevidence for this but that doesn't stop various reviewers saying that in-len IS seems better. They also point out that you can see the stabilisation through the lens, which you can't when it's built into the camera, and also that it means that the metering and AFmay be more accurate.

All very esoteric and theoretical but my guess is that it doesn't make much difference where you put it,except that the in-camera stabilisation has a couple of crucial advantages. As has been said, you get stabilisation in all lenses. Butthe other advantage is that you can "upgrade" your IS more easily.Most people don't change their lenses that often. You buy the best you can afford and stick with it. They don't get any cheaper.So you're going to rely on that complicated IS technology working for many years.Digital camera bodies are much more disposable itemsand just keep getting cheaper. When my 5D packs up, I'll get a Sony for a few hundred poundsand benefit immediately fromthe improvements in technology. Those who have early Canon IS lenses are stuck with their old technology and it'll be incredibly expensive to upgrade it.
Technophile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2006, 10:24 AM   #5
Senior Member
NHL's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,599

I agree with Technophile, but don't forget the built-in IS on the sensor also "shakes" out the dust (it does nothing in the lens so they'll have to come up with a different system like Oly for cleaning the sensor)

... Plus one also have more flexibility in choosing lenses as some of the 3rd party lenses are getting really good exceeding the OEM sometime at a much lower cost!!!
NHL 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 10:23 AM.