In-body vs lens stabilisation (1 Viewer)

John Cantelo · Nov 19, 2009

After more than 18 months of dithering I am gradually coming round to upgrading my Panasonic FZ30. In all but one respect Panasonic G1 looks ideal; relatively small (for an "DSLR" style camera), good grip (the Olympus Pen didn't feel too secure in my hand), a swivelling screen, not hideously expensive (which rules out the upgraded version) and with digi-scoping potential. My gripe is that stabilisation is in the lens, not the body. I'd prefer to pay once for a function rather than every time I buy a new lens - besides doesn't it push the price of the lenses up and limit the range of lenses available (already low on 4/3 cameras). However, today I told that in-body stabilisation causes some degradation in the image which the alternative does not. So should i forget the G1, opt for the Olympus 620 or wait for a few more rivals in the mirrorless 4/3 field?

ammadoux · Dec 2, 2009

sorry i did not get what you want (maybe due to my poor english) but as an olympus 620 owner i say the IS did not help me at all, i just did not get how it works, i use my 620 with the Sigma 50-500 which is too heavy to be hand held by me, so i use a tripod or i go for /1000 sec for exposure time when i had to use it without a tripod.

the mirco 4/3 olympus E-P1 ans E-P2 and the panasonic's reveal seem to be promising but they don't offer better resolution so until they do i don't think they will draw much attention.

BTW the small grip og the micro4/3 is one big advantage to me it feels more like my old OM4 f35 mm film camera. but you did not like it.

carlj · Dec 2, 2009

John, the person telling you that in body degrades an image - perchance owner of a camera that only uses lens based stabilisation?

Regardless of which type you have, technique will always win out, as Ammadoux mentioned. I use in body, and have had some great results combined with the Tamron 200-500mm, but the biggest problem I believe you may have, is the availabilty and price, of suitably long lenses.

But there is a digiscoping thread dedicated to the G1 I believe.
Carl

John Cantelo · Dec 3, 2009

Thanks to both - I thought nobody had noticed my question! It was camera shop staff who insisted in-camera stabilisation systems were inferior. Everything else being equal I'd much prefer an 'in-body' system since I can't help feeling that with lens systems you keep paying for the function you would otherwise 'buy' only once. This plus the inevitable extra cost of lenses is what inclines me against the G1; the same camera with an in-body system would be my camera of choice,

andrew_s · Dec 5, 2009

In my position as a non-expert, I'd expect in-lens stabilisation to be better than in-body for longer lenses.
If you twitch a certain amount, the image will move twice as far on the sensor with a 100mm lens as it will with a 50mm lens.

If you shift the sensor to compensate, you've got to shift it twice as far in the same amount of time.
If you compensate in the lens, you are changing the angle at which the light leaves the lens. You compensate the same amount, and the focal length automatically taken into account.

It does seem that those who favour in-lens stabilisation (Canon. Nikon, Sigma) are also those who have lenses over about 300mm

Matt_RTH · Dec 6, 2009

Sensor shift IS in my experience is very unpredictable. Sometimes it works well, others not. With lens IS, you can see the effect. I find in-lens to be far more effective and with the direct reinforcement of effect, very instructive in adapting to changing conditions. Sure, you can "chimp" with the in-body type, but that might be well after the money shot leaves.

ammadoux · Dec 6, 2009

i repeat what i said before, i did not get any benefit from the internal IS on my E 620. frankly when i will look for another body, the IS feather will not be of any significant to me.

BTW. most of my photography subjects are warblers and sunbird, so if it was of any help i wuold be very useful for me.

postcardcv · Dec 6, 2009

carlj said:
John, the person telling you that in body degrades an image - perchance owner of a camera that only uses lens based stabilisation?

John Cantelo said:
Thanks to both - I thought nobody had noticed my question! It was camera shop staff who insisted in-camera stabilisation systems were inferior.

I have heard exactly the same thing from a number of people within the industry. It was suggested that IS in lens is designed to work on a specific focal length and is thus more efficient than an in body system which will have to deal with a wide range of focal lengths. Certainly the Canon in lens IS seems amazingly good and allows shooting at suprisingly slow speeds.

The micro 4/3rds system does look extremely promising but at the moment the number of lenses available is quite limiting. I agree about the EP-1, I really wanted to love it, but it just did not feel right in the hand. I have tested the G1 a couple of times and have been really tempted to get one, it's great in the hand, the articulated screen is handy and the image quality is great. Currently there's £30 cash back on it so you can get it with the kit lens for just over £400, which makes it a very good buy.

NoSpringChicken · Dec 7, 2009

ammadoux said:
i repeat what i said before, i did not get any benefit from the internal IS on my E 620. frankly when i will look for another body, the IS feather will not be of any significant to me.

BTW. most of my photography subjects are warblers and sunbird, so if it was of any help i wuold be very useful for me.

I am surprised to hear about your experience with the internal IS, Duha. I use mine all the time and find it very useful. There is still no substitute for fast shutter speeds and making sure you hold the camera steady. Some of my shots in low light are far from sharp but on other occasions the results have surpassed my expectations, given the conditions.

On the E-620 and my E-30 it is possible to use legacy lenses by entering the focal length of the lens to calibrate the IS system. This is obviously easier with a prime lens than a zoom but I assume you would normally enter the longest focal length.

Concerning the OP's original question I don't know which system is better as I have only used the inbuilt version. However, the inbuilt IS is one feature which prompted me to buy an Olympus camera. It seems to work pretty well and I am not disappointed. However, the lack of affordable lenses over 300mm means that Olympus remains a poor choice for bird photography.

Ron

SteveClifton · Dec 7, 2009

NoSpringChicken said:
I am surprised to hear about your experience with the internal IS, Duha. I use mine all the time and find it very useful. There is still no substitute for fast shutter speeds and making sure you hold the camera steady. Some of my shots in low light are far from sharp but on other occasions the results have surpassed my expectations, given the conditions.

On the E-620 and my E-30 it is possible to use legacy lenses by entering the focal length of the lens to calibrate the IS system. This is obviously easier with a prime lens than a zoom but I assume you would normally enter the longest focal length.

Concerning the OP's original question I don't know which system is better as I have only used the inbuilt version. However, the inbuilt IS is one feature which prompted me to buy an Olympus camera. It seems to work pretty well and I am not disappointed. However, the lack of affordable lenses over 300mm means that Olympus remains a poor choice for bird photography.

Ron

I'm currently in the position of owning both systems. I've owned an Olympus E-510 with 50-200SWD and 1.4 converter for over a year and have been very happy with some of the results I've had with it. However, I've began to have nagging doubts that I was missing something, so bought a used Canon 40D and a couple of weeks ago a 100-400L IS zoom lens to go with it.

It's early days yet, and I'm still testing and comparing both systems, but my early gut feeling is that the Canon zoom's stabilizing system works better. I've never been aware of the Olympus IS working, whereas you are certainly aware of the Canon IS 'locking on' and can actually see the steadying effect it has on the image.

In comparison, the Olympus combo gives an effective 560mm with max aperture of F4.9
It's the longest quality and reasonably fast Olympus lens I can afford.

The Canon lens @400mm is an effective 640mm F5.6 without a teleconverter (AF is not retained with a converter, though for tripod work the extra 40% is still an extra bonus that I might explore sometime in the future).

I am still yet to be convinced that the Canon lens is as sharp as the Olympus, even with the converter attached, but as I said it's early days and I have some more testing to do.

Ironically I tend to use the Olympus lens on a tripod, and have had best results with close-ups of large insects, whereas the Canon lens feels great hand-held for birds in flight, even though it is a bit longer in reach. It is also around 1kg heavier taking into account the camera body with lens attached.

Steve

NoSpringChicken · Dec 7, 2009

SteveClifton said:
It's early days yet, and I'm still testing and comparing both systems, but my early gut feeling is that the Canon zoom's stabilizing system works better. I've never been aware of the Olympus IS working, whereas you are certainly aware of the Canon IS 'locking on' and can actually see the steadying effect it has on the image.

I must admit I don't really understand the technical details of how both systems work but am I right in thinking that the lens stabilization helps to physically stop movement of the lens, whereas the inbuilt stabilization detects movement of the lens and adjusts the position of the sensor to compensate? If this is the case, then you won't see the effects of the inbuilt stabilization through the viewfinder. I might have got this completely wrong but it could be an explanation. It doesn't mean that the lens stabilization is actually working better but is just easier to see when it is functioning.

Ron

SteveClifton · Dec 8, 2009

I too have to admit to having no idea about this Ron, but you could well have a point.

On a different note, I thought you might be interested in a couple of heavily cropped jpeg shots taken at equivalent settings with both systems. The first is the Canon, and the Olympus is second.

The Canon 100-400 was zoomed down to around 340mm, which is about the same as the 50-200SWD @ 200mm with the 1.4TC attached.

At first I thought the canon was clearly sharper, but then realized that I usually keep the Olympus sharpness settings at -1 or 0. When turned up to +1 or +2 there was really little to choose between the two lenses. The Canon sharpness settings were at 6 (where 7 is the maximum, so roughly the same). I removed the B+W filter from the Canon as I was worried it was affecting sharpness, but forgot to remove the Kenko filter from the Oly, so it might well have a slight edge without it.

Other settings were identical as far as I could get it:
F8, ISO 200, spot metering, Aperture priority, Automatic White Balance, IS off

These were the sharpest pictures I could get from both lenses after trying various settings. Both lenses were noticeably less sharp wide open.

It's interesting that the Canon appears sharper overall (look at the writing around the oval to the lower right), but more fine detail & texture is visible with the Olympus to the lower left of the picture.

Steve

Matt_RTH · Dec 8, 2009

The Canon is better by a small margin. I don't know if it matters, but one shot is at 1/13 and one is at 1/15 second. It might be better to do the test manually. If these were the only differences, then it would almost be immaterial as they are both quite decent for that focal length and that exposure time.

However, in my experience, there are other issues with in-body. Such as the "spool up" time for in-body IS to be effective, as well as the unpredictability of effect, making in-lens preferable. None of this is by a huge margin except in adverse conditions; in-body is a huge benefit for a lot of photographers. On the other hand, our hobby is characterized by taking hundreds or thousands of shots on the hunt for that one shot of a lifetime. One must have a lot of confidence in their gear at that moment.

John Cantelo · Dec 8, 2009

Good to see a detailed discussion although I suspect what will really tip the balance, other than size, is the overall cost of the system I opt for

bkrownd · Dec 9, 2009

postcardcv said:
I have heard exactly the same thing from a number of people within the industry. It was suggested that IS in lens is designed to work on a specific focal length and is thus more efficient than an in body system which will have to deal with a wide range of focal lengths.

This is obviously nonsense. Unless you're talking about a prime lens they both have to work over wide range of focal lengths, and are designed to do just that.

These off-the-cuff arguements about lens vs. sensor shifting are usually silly and off-base. The two yield basically the same results. Each system, from each manufacturer, will work slightly differently. It's the quality and details of the specific system and combination of components used with the system that matter - something you'd have to test carefully in a wide variety of real-world situations to begin to evaluate. Even a single company willl have more than one version of its own system, with various performance differences.

bkrownd · Dec 9, 2009

NoSpringChicken said:
I must admit I don't really understand the technical details of how both systems work but am I right in thinking that the lens stabilization helps to physically stop movement of the lens

No. There is an extra optical element added to the system to move the image around on the focal plane.

postcardcv · Dec 11, 2009

bkrownd said:
This is obviously nonsense. Unless you're talking about a prime lens they both have to work over wide range of focal lengths, and are designed to do just that.

These off-the-cuff arguements about lens vs. sensor shifting are usually silly and off-base. The two yield basically the same results.

Forgive me for talking nonsense, I shall try not to do so again.

For the record though this isn't an off-the-cuff arguement. My comments were based on conversations with a number of people within the industry including a couple of guys who each have 20+ years expereince repairing cameras and lenses. I suspect that know more about the inner workings of these things then most of us on here do.

In-body vs lens stabilisation (1 Viewer)

More options

John Cantelo

Well-known member

ammadoux

Registered doux

carlj

Well-known member

John Cantelo

Well-known member

andrew_s

Well-known member

Matt_RTH

Well-known member

ammadoux

Registered doux

postcardcv

Super Moderator

NoSpringChicken

Well-known member

SteveClifton

Well-known member

NoSpringChicken

Well-known member

SteveClifton

Well-known member

Attachments

Matt_RTH

Well-known member

John Cantelo

Well-known member

bkrownd

Well-known member

bkrownd

Well-known member

postcardcv

Super Moderator

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread