in body camera shake reduction and Canon's IS

[winterstar]

How are these the same and how are this different?

Thank you!

[Niresangwa]

pentax's shake reduction is housed in the body, the other brands are housed in the lens. going with the other brand youll have to deal with getting a VR lens for each piece of glass you buy...older lenses won't have this newer technology.. with pentax, even older lenses can benefit from the SR feature because obviously, it works throug hthe body

[winterstar]

Originally Posted by Niresangwa

pentax's shake reduction is housed in the body, the other brands are housed in the lens. going with the other brand youll have to deal with getting a VR lens for each piece of glass you buy...older lenses won't have this newer technology.. with pentax, even older lenses can benefit from the SR feature because obviously, it works throug hthe body

Thank you! I supposed I should have thought of that, rather then over think it.

Me, queen of over-thinking.

[inkista]

I believe most in-body stabilization systems are accomplished by shifting about the sensor. With Canon and Nikon IS/VR, it's accomplished by moving elements in the lens. Both systems make it easier to handhold at slower shutter speeds, but they do not replace a tripod and they do nothing for subject motion blur.

In-body stablization will work with any lens, but is going to be slightly less efficient than in-lens stabilization at reducing motion blur at supertelephoto focal lengths (> 300mm). And the camera bodies that have in-body stabilization (Pentax, Olympus, Sony) have smaller current lens selections overall.

[winterstar]

Originally Posted by inkista

I believe most in-body stabilization systems are accomplished by shifting about the sensor. With Canon and Nikon IS/VR, it's accomplished by moving elements in the lens. Both systems make it easier to handhold at slower shutter speeds, but they do not replace a tripod and they do nothing for subject motion blur.

In-body stablization will work with any lens, but is going to be slightly less efficient than in-lens stabilization at reducing motion blur at supertelephoto focal lengths (> 300mm). And the camera bodies that have in-body stabilization (Pentax, Olympus, Sony) have smaller current lens selections overall.

question on that -- would supertelephoto be the lenses for birds and celestial photography?

[inkista]

Originally Posted by winterstar

question on that -- would supertelephoto be the lenses for birds and celestial photography?

Birds, definitely. Astrophotography, yes, if you have a tracking head. Longer lenses will magnify movement, too. So, to avoid getting "star trails" at the shutter speeds you're likely to be using, you'd need a tracking head of some kind. It's less pronounced with wide-angle lenses, so you can still get night sky pictures with wider angle lenses.

The tracking issue is non-trivial cost-wise, which is why a lot of folks just get a t-mount adapter to attach the camera to a telescope which already has tracking capability.

The main thing is that Pentax doesn't make any superteles these days. The longest focal length they currently offer is a 300mm (Oly has a 2x crop factor, though, and Sony makes a 70-400 as well as 500mm f/8 mirror lens--but nobody aside from Canon and Nikon make 600mm lenses). Sigma makes a lot of lower-cost superteles (say, $1000 for a 400 or 500mm lens), but most folks agree that they're not quite up to the quality of Canon/Nikon's more expensive versions (then again, that may just be the money talking). Superteles are a niche lens, and only the market leaders make enough off them to make it worth their while. But if you need one, Canon is probably the best place to look in terms of price, selection, and quality overall. I lucked out in that I chose a Canon camera before I realized I was going to be doing a lot of bird photography.

[Mr Guy]

Unless they've very recently stopped, Pentax makes a 600mm; it's just special order. It's due to be discontinued, but I can't find any strong evidence that it actually WAS. It's still available used, if you look for it.

Also, I don't believe it's been mentioned, but from what I've read, there's two main differences between in body and in lens. In body stabilization works better in most head to head comparisons I've seen done, but there's only a few systems that allow direct comparisons so those results are dubious at best. In lens has the big advantage that the stabilization is done BEFORE the viewfinder, so it's easier to see what it's going to do while shooting (or so I'd imagine). Also, in body stabilization starts to fail at long telephoto lengths, because it's simply not possible to move a sensor far enough, fast enough. In the 100 to 300 range, you'd be hard pressed to find a difference, with the exception that old 300 legacy glass is stabilized with an in body system, but you'd need a new lens for in lens.

[BCampbell]

Another note is that with in-body stabilization, you will never get better results without upgrading your camera body, no matter how much better the manufacturer gets with the technology.

With lens stabilization, an improved technology applied to the lens is backwards compatible with any body the lens fits on.

Of course, the reciprocal is true, and we do tend to upgrade camera bodies more frequently than lenses. But it's some food for thought.

[winterstar]

Thank you for the replies!

[navcom]

Originally Posted by BCampbell

Another note is that with in-body stabilization, you will never get better results without upgrading your camera body, no matter how much better the manufacturer gets with the technology.

With lens stabilization, an improved technology applied to the lens is backwards compatible with any body the lens fits on.

You are correct that most folks upgrade their camera body several times for every lens upgrade. And it's also true that much of the technology upgrades occur in the body versus the lens. Therefore, if you consider the cost if in-lens stabilization, it makes more sense to go in-body stabilization (unless you really need 600mm perfection as mentioned before). The stabilization technology is going to improve with each new camera body. If you have thousands invested in lenses, you won't get that benefit. With in-body, it's much more cost-effective in the long run (if cost is your concern).

A mid-range camera body costs around $1000 give or take. I have many old manual lenses that are every bit as good if not better than some of my new ones. And some of those old ones I've acquired for less than $100. Consider that my non-IS lens collection is many thousands less than the same collection in IS lenses and I have room to upgrade my body many times over...with new technology each time.