Is image stabilization better on the camera body or on the lens of a dSLR?

Question

I am looking to buy a dSLR and need to know which way is best to go. I will be taking most of my pictures outdoors of either friends and family posed or wild life and scenery. Please list references to information ect... and/or quantify your reasoning.

Answer 1

I agree with Bob and I will add one more bit of insight. I have the D200 and the same 18-200 VR lens he mentioned, along with a 70-300 VR and my wife has a 55-200 VR for her D50, so we have some experience.

With the on-board "shake reduction," as far as I know, there is one mode and it can be fooled under certain situations. I asked for clarification on this and no Pentaxians or Sony-users came forward to answer my question. I did not find information on either the Pentax or Sony sites, either.

With Nikon and Canon lenses, there are two modes that will allow you to choose the proper mode. Of course, you can always turn the VR/IS off if you do not want it. On Canon lenses, they are called Mode I and Mode II, but I don't know for sure which is which. On Nikon lenses, the modes are called "Normal" and "Active."

From a Nikon lens manual:

NORMAL: The vibration reduction mechanism primarily reduces camera shake, making smooth panning shots possible.

ACTIVE: The vibration reduction mechanism reduces camera shake when taking pictures and those from a moving vehicle. In this mode, the lens does not automatically distinguish panning from camera shake.

Here's my stock answer with demo's about "VR."

~~~~~~~~~~

Image Stabilization - Vibration Reduction

This technology is known as "image stabilization," "vibration reduction," "shake reduction," "optical stabilization," and "anti-shake" by the various manufacturers. It is "for real" and makes a visible difference most of the time. If you are using an average point and shoot camera without a monstrous zoom lens, you will see the difference in lower light situations where the camera will be using about 1/60th of a second or lower.

If you are using a telephoto lens, the effect will be noticeable at roughly anything slower than the inverse of the focal length, which used to be our standard for deciding when you should use a tripod. If it's a 200 mm lens, you will see the benefit of "IS" or "VR" at speeds of 1/200 or slower. If it's a 500 mm lens, you will see the benefit of "IS" or "VR" at speeds of 1/500 or slower. Actually, you will notice a difference at slower speeds than this, but I'd say that this threshold is where it can be called a distinct advantage. Macro shooting benefits from "IS/VR" also, because any movement will be greatly magnified when you are working at extreme close range with high magnification. Also, I feel that "IS/VR" helps if you are using a point and shoot camera at arm's length as you compose in the LCD monitor. It is much harder to hold the camera still with your arms out in front of you. "VR/IS" would be helpful there, even with the shorter focal lengths.

Please understand that "VR" or "IS" (etc) will NOT stop motion in a moving subject. You need to use a high shutter speed and/or pan along with the subject in order to do that. VR is only to minimize the effects of camera movement to give you a better chance at getting a clear picture. It won't work miracles there, either. You have to at least TRY to hold still. You can't go down a bumpy road in speeding car and expect to get great shots.

This is a composite I made to demonstrate "vibration reduction," which is also called "image stabilization" and "shake reduction" by various camera and lens manufacturers. For the best results, you should click on "All Sizes" and then "Original" before making your comparisons. I tried to remain consistent for all three shots, but I guess as clouds move in and out, things varied by an f-stop or so. I do not think that depth of field is an issue in this test, though. I did not move my feet at all during the test, so the point of view is identical. All three images were made using 1/60th of a second, which I consider to be the low shutter speed for hand-holding a 60 mm lens. I made a reference shot with my 60 mm Nikon macro lens, since I know this to be a fairly sharp lens. I tried to hold as still as I could, but I did not use a tripod. I then made two more exposures with the Nikon 18-200 VR lens, set at 62 mm. I was trying to match the 60 mm lens, but I did it by just remembering some landmarks and zooming to match. As I used the VR lens, however, I did my best to actually "vibrate" the camera by inducing a tremor in my hands as if I was shivering in the cold. I took one photo with the help of VR and one without. It was extremely odd to look through the lens as I shook my hands.

Since the VR was working, even though I knew I was shaking the camera, the image appeared steady in the viewfinder! Okay, compare the shots for yourself. You won't see too much difference in the top two, but the effect of vibration reduction is very obvious when you see how the picture comes out when "VR" is turned off.

Nikon D200 - ISO 100 - Nikon 60 mm Macro and Nikon 18-200 VR with and without VR

http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/511455669/

I realized that the first VR demo (above) may not be a "real world" demo, as I was TRYING to shake during the exposure. Who does that? I was originally trying to answer a question for someone who had a problem with severe tremors, so I was trying to induce tremors in my own hands. Well, I should ask, "Who does that on purpose?"

So in this pair, I was trying to hold still for both shots. The white balance is different, as I am trying to learn about that, but I realized that the first shot I took had the "VR" turned off. Everything else is the same, because I didn't move and the shots were made less than 30 seconds apart. The exposures were the same for both shots. I did not do ANY post-processing at all, as that would defeat the purpose of the demo.

Nikon D200 - ISO 100 - Nikon 70-300 VR @ 240 mm with and without VR

http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/755244335/

For a detailed, yet easy to understand explanation, see:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/image-stabilization.htm

~~~~~~~~~~

Answer 2

Both camps can point to tests that show one is better than the other in certain situations. So in the end it might be a wash in the real world. Here's what you really need ot know about Canon and Nikon. They have stabilization built only into certain lenses, not all lenses. If you go Sony alpha, every lens you attach is stable. Even better, all prime lenses are stable. There are no stable prime lenses with Canon or Nikon. The Sony 300 and 350 also have the best live view, period. Canon has the advantage with cleaner images at high ISO, same for the Nikon. The 350 is on the slow side, not a big surprise because those 14MP files aren't exactly small. The Canon and Sony are both good choices to be honest. The nikon is fine, the only issue with the D40 and D60 that I see popping up here on Yahoo is that people that went out a got either of these Nikons because all the Nikon fanboys said Nikon rules.. didn't mention that these entry level bodies don't have an auto focus motor. So some lenses will AF, other models will not. It can become a problem when looking at certain lenses that don't have the motor in the lens, you'll end up with a manual focus lens. You won't run into this problem with Sony or Canon. If you go Nikon, skip the entry level bodies so you won't run into this issue. Bottom line, no matter what I say, or what others might post, you have a lot of research to do. We can't fit everything in here. Start your search engine, there are tons and tons of reviews and real photographs taken with these cameras all over the net. good luck. p.s. Sony A700 shooter.

Answer 3

Well everything else being equal in camera is better because you only buy it once and it works with all your lenses.

But evertyhing is usually not equal so you'll really have to look at the other features of the camera that may or may not meet your needs--as well as the effectiveness of the in-camera VR.

The only situation you listed above that would require a telephoto lens where vr would help is the wildlife. Even then you'd probably be shooting with a tripod. I'd let the other features of the camera make your decision and let the vr (internal vs external) be the tie breaker.

I'm a D80 owner with the 18-200mm vr lens. Love it!

Answer 4

Unfortunately, a number of forum members have failed to take into consideration that Nikon VR lenses, for example, are very expensive. Granted there may be some benefit of "image stabilization" within a specialized lense, however, the cost factor for these VR lenses may very well push owners of D Series Nikon to "rent" not "buy" these lenses.

On the other hand, "image stabilization" systems offered by Sony and Pentax which are built into their camera bodies, invites a more affordable alternative to "lenses with image stabilization." Of the two camera systems, I would highly recommend the award winning Pentax KD series beginning with the Pentax K100D 6.1 mp DSLR.

The final decision, unfortunately, is likely to be based more on your budget than whether or not "image stabilization" is better on specialized lenses for "wildlife and scenery." Perhaps you should "rent" both inbody and in-lenses options for a trial run and see if you can see any difference in the end product.

Good luck!

Answer 5

My theory that is image stabilization system will crap out eventually no mater who makes it. I would rather it to crap out in a lens than in the body.
If it craps out in the body it will need to be sent in for repairers and you will be without a camera for couple of weeks. If it go out in the lens only the lens to be sent in for repairers.