Re: In-camera stabilization or in-lens?
- From: Dave Busch <moc.toofgib@eriafresal>
- Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 02:26:18 -0400
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:49:00 -0400, "3Putt from CoastalSouth Carolina"
<3putt@PawleysIslandSC> wrote:
Which is preferable (since I only have hand-held stabilization and it's kindThose who sell only in-lens image stabilization (Nikon and Canon) say
of shaky.)
that it's easier to provide superior IS effects in a lens than in a
camera body; that lens IS can be custom-tailored to provide the best
IS for that particular lens (rather than the one-IS-fits all approach
of in-body stabilization); and that in-lens IS is now simple and
inexpensive, and doesn't bloat the size of the lens. (For the record,
my 18-55 non-stabilized lens is almost identical in size and weight to
my 18-55 stabilized lens from the same vendor. It's not particularly
useful to compare stabilized/non-stabilized from different vendors,
such as Nikon/Sigma.)
Those who sell only in-camera image stabilization say other things.
Your needs may lean you towards one approach or the other. In
practice, I find that I need only a couple stabilized lenses, and I
have them, so I don't miss having stabilization in the camera body.
But those who own a lot of older, non stabilized lenses, especially
telephotos, might gain something by getting a compatible
image-stabilized body.
Dave
-------------------------------------
Everything I know, and then some:
http://www.auctionmyths.com
.
- References:
- In-camera stabilization or in-lens?
- From: 3Putt from CoastalSouth Carolina
- In-camera stabilization or in-lens?
- Prev by Date: Re: Upgrades
- Next by Date: Re: In-camera stabilization or in-lens?
- Previous by thread: Re: In-camera stabilization or in-lens?
- Next by thread: Re: In-camera stabilization or in-lens?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
