Re: In-camera stabilization or in-lens?
- From: John McWilliams <jpmcw@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:12:05 -0700
C J Campbell wrote:
On 2008-04-28 12:49:00 -0700, "3Putt from CoastalSouth Carolina" <3putt@PawleysIslandSC> said:
Which is preferable (since I only have hand-held stabilization and it's kind
of shaky.)
In-lens will always be superior, as in 'works better.' Think about it. The further the IS elements are from the film plane, the less they have to move in order to achieve the same effect. Putting the IS inside the camera body requires far more movement. This means more moving parts, too, and greater vulnerability to damage.
In-camera stabilization works better with wide-angle lenses and close focusing distances, where you need it least. In-lens stabilization works batter with telephotos and long focusing distances, where you need it most.
The one single advantage that in-body IS is supposed to give you is that it works with all your lenses. However, this is not really true. It hardly works at all with long telephotos.
It is not true that IS makes your lenses into big, fat cannons. Nikon's 18-200 mm VR is not bigger than Sigma's lens because it has VR. The VR is very tiny. If it were as big as some posters claim, you sure would not want it in the camera body!
In-camera stabilization is a marketing stunt created to separate the stupid from their money.
Well phrased. Could also be the ignorant, or those who rely on the opinions of strangers.
STELLA!!
--
john mcwilliams
.
- References:
- In-camera stabilization or in-lens?
- From: 3Putt from CoastalSouth Carolina
- Re: In-camera stabilization or in-lens?
- From: C J Campbell
- In-camera stabilization or in-lens?
- Prev by Date: Re: In-camera stabilization or in-lens?
- Next by Date: Re: Has anybody figured out how to use ISO 100 in a 40D?
- Previous by thread: Re: In-camera stabilization or in-lens?
- Next by thread: Re: In-camera stabilization or in-lens?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|