In-body vs in-lens Image Stabilization

Dayo said:

You need to get a grip and learn not to swear at people that disagree
with you as it may make people think you are uncouth.

I repeat, I don't think you are lying and never said you were. I do
think your claim that a shaky VF has an advantage of helping
stability over a stable one is a load of nonsense though.

This does not say incam AS has no advantages (I even concluded in my
first post here that it is better for me) but that this "advantage"
does not exist.

Feel free to disagree in a way that does not portray you as a boorish
nitwit which we know you are not and we will all be the better for it.

Click to expand...

Gee guys, lighten up a bit. Didn't mean to engender the name calling just by making a simple observation about in-lens vs in-camera IS. For me, since I'm a Pentax guy, the in-camera system works fine although I'd like to have a stabilized VF image.

IS is here, it's good, it works and I don't want to do without it; I don't want to practice controlled breathing, or learn to compensate for the movement because it will somehow be "better" for me and enhance my skills. I just want to take pictures, and if that means using IS to make it easier, or more productive, or just more fun, so be it.

Do it any way you want, just enjoy what you do and don't try and knock the shovel out of somebody's hands because you think there's a better way to dig a hole,
Brian

Dayo said:

JoePhoto said:

I would suggest that an unstabilized viewfinder can help you better
hand-hold the camera but providing better feedback.

Click to expand...

That is pure BS.

--

Click to expand...

I couldn't resist as his often non-useful post start by calling people names, bad me this time.. basically he bought his camera for no good reason and gets mad when anyone else has a reason for choosing a Sony. Its an odd self loathing thing from what I can tell.

Just kidding.. But Dayo you have to admit your four word response was basically overly emotional and useless to the discussion.

Its not bull.. Its called Bio Feeback. Look it up..

At least with the Sony system not only do you get visual feedback of how you are holding the camera, but you get the meter in the lenses. The feedback can be used to help you learn how to hold the camera better. This kind of thing is used in medicine and sports to help people learn to control all sorts of voluntary processes.

The stabilized finder is dampening feedback you don't see shake until you have overwhelmed the system then you have to correct. It can help you frame a subject better.. but it does nothing to help YOU hold the camera better.

A few people because the stabilized VF causes the eye to see different than the inner ear feels have reported a mild queezy feeling like seasickness. this I would assume would go away as the brain learned to deal with the eye-ear mis match.

---------
Ken - A700 Owner..
Some of my work at:
http://gallery.cascadephotoworks.com

BHPhotog said:

Gee guys, lighten up a bit. Didn't mean to engender the name calling
just by making a simple observation about in-lens vs in-camera IS.
For me, since I'm a Pentax guy, the in-camera system works fine
although I'd like to have a stabilized VF image.

Click to expand...

I think In-Cam AS is great to have and that the best option would be to have both available such that when you mount a non stabilised lens, the In-Cam AS kicks in. This way, users will get the benefit of both systems.

I do also believe that a shaky VF is not an advantage over a stable one. This is what the heat under the collar has been about.

--
http://dakanji.com

'I make statements based on fact not predictions.'
KMSEA: 12:33:17 PM, Saturday, November 12, 2005 (GMT)

Dayo said:

I do also believe that a shaky VF is not an advantage over a stable
one. This is what the heat under the collar has been about.

--

Click to expand...

Actually it is not that you believe that, it is that you state as fact that others who believe differently are wrong.

even more so given

Dayo said:

'I make statements based on fact not predictions.'
--

Click to expand...

You are entitled to your opinion, so are they (I am neutral on this...stabilized viewfinder means nothing to me, but I respect that it helps some people and hinders others).

neil

neil holmes said:

even more so given
'I make statements based on fact not predictions.'

Click to expand...

You did learn in school that a statement enclosed in ' ' is a quotation didn't you?

As for the the Shaky v Stable VF issue, I do think, and hence state as a matter of fact, that shaky VFs do not have a stability advantage over stable ones.

The emotionally involved may take this to mean I am against In-Cam Stabilisation but that is down to their own insecurities.

--
http://dakanji.com

'I make statements based on fact not predictions.'
KMSEA: 12:33:17 PM, Saturday, November 12, 2005 (GMT)

Dayo said:

neil holmes said:

even more so given
'I make statements based on fact not predictions.'

Click to expand...

You did learn in school that a statement enclosed in ' ' is a
quotation didn't you?

Click to expand...

You just do not get it.

Dayo said:

As for the the Shaky v Stable VF issue, I do think, and hence state
as a matter of fact, that shaky VFs do not have a stability advantage
over stable ones.

Click to expand...

FOR YOU!! they do not....for others they do....THATS the point...you are stating it as a fact for all when it is ONLY a fact (or opinion) for you.

See for other people the "facts" are different.....so we have two lots of "facts" that contardict each other...who to believe?

You, who know NOTHING of what other people know about themselves, or those people making statements that apply to them (that you regard as BS).

So again here is how I interpret the "facts"....for YOU a shaky viewfinder is not a good thing, for others it is not a problem.

You are saying that they are wrong....even though they are only talking for themselves and their own experiences.

Dayo said:

The emotionally involved may take this to mean I am against In-Cam
Stabilisation but that is down to their own insecurities.

Click to expand...

I do not think it has to do with anyone ELSES insecurities.

neil

It can be put another way to make everyone happy. A majority of the people would rather have a stable VF. That would probably be fair, every review I've read and every podcast(2) I listen to has all the hosts/authors say that the moving VF is a negative.

It's not fact that everyone would rather have a stable viewfinder, but a vast majority probably do not.

KALEL33 said:

It can be put another way to make everyone happy. A majority of the
people would rather have a stable VF. That would probably be fair,
every review I've read and every podcast(2) I listen to has all the
hosts/authors say that the moving VF is a negative.

It's not fact that everyone would rather have a stable viewfinder,
but a vast majority probably do not.

Click to expand...

Do or do not... ?

The Viewfinder is a strawman in many ways.. its a effect of where you put the stabilization.

In my case and from what I read sometimes on the Canon forum.. most would like in body stabilization.

For Long 300mm + lenses I also see the value of the stabilized VF and having it in the lens..
---------
Ken - A700 Owner..
Some of my work at:
http://gallery.cascadephotoworks.com

Ken_5D said:

For Long 300mm + lenses I also see the value of the stabilized VF and
having it in the lens..

Click to expand...

More or less what I wrote a few days ago above...

'If I did a lot of telephoto stuff, I'll say in lens is heads and shoulders better but I don't which is why I say in body is better for me.'

--
http://dakanji.com

'I make statements based on fact not predictions.'
KMSEA: 12:33:17 PM, Saturday, November 12, 2005 (GMT)

neil holmes said:

Dayo said:

neil holmes said:

even more so given
'I make statements based on fact not predictions.'

Click to expand...

You did learn in school that a statement enclosed in ' ' is a
quotation didn't you?

Click to expand...

You just do not get it.

Click to expand...

No. You don't ... perhaps you missed that class.

Member said:

Member said:

As for the the Shaky v Stable VF issue, I do think, and hence state
as a matter of fact, that shaky VFs do not have a stability advantage
over stable ones.

Click to expand...

FOR YOU!! they do not....for others they do....THATS the point...you
are stating it as a fact for all when it is ONLY a fact (or opinion)
for you.

Click to expand...

Not just for me. It is a fact of human biology. Just like I will say "BS!" to anyone that tells they can walk from Moscow to Vladivostok in a day.

Member said:

So again here is how I interpret the "facts"....for YOU a shaky
viewfinder is not a good thing, for others it is not a problem.

Click to expand...

This is where the emotional get all worked up and read things into statements. I never said a shaky VF is a bad thing and a problem for anyone. I don't think it is a problem. What I said that having your VF shake is not an advantage over having it stable as was claimed. There is a difference between both statements my dear friend.

Member said:

I do not think it has to do with anyone ELSES insecurities.

Click to expand...

Except yours perhaps it appears.

Take it easy.
--
http://dakanji.com

'I make statements based on fact not predictions.'
KMSEA: 12:33:17 PM, Saturday, November 12, 2005 (GMT)

Dayo said:

neil holmes said:

Dayo said:

neil holmes said:

even more so given
'I make statements based on fact not predictions.'

Click to expand...

You did learn in school that a statement enclosed in ' ' is a
quotation didn't you?

Click to expand...

You just do not get it.

Click to expand...

No. You don't ... perhaps you missed that class.

Click to expand...

That was clever...did you think it up yourself?

Dayo said:

Dayo said:

Dayo said:

As for the the Shaky v Stable VF issue, I do think, and hence state
as a matter of fact, that shaky VFs do not have a stability advantage
over stable ones.

Click to expand...

FOR YOU!! they do not....for others they do....THATS the point...you
are stating it as a fact for all when it is ONLY a fact (or opinion)
for you.

Click to expand...

Not just for me. It is a fact of human biology. Just like I will
say "BS!" to anyone that tells they can walk from Moscow to
Vladivostok in a day.

Click to expand...

Last time I checked "human biology" did not come with a viewfinder...stabilized or otherwise. And that is just silly to compare someones statements on THEIR belief about a stabilized viewfinder to a really long walk in a day.

As I have said...stabilized vf means nothing to me (even with really long lenses)...I accept that many people like it....I also accept that many do not and many others like me could care less.

Dayo said:

Take it easy.

Click to expand...

I allways do.

This really is a silly argument....That you think your opinions are facts say it all to me and I will leave it there.

neil

KALEL33 said:

It can be put another way to make everyone happy. A majority of the
people would rather have a stable VF. That would probably be fair,
every review I've read and every podcast(2) I listen to has all the
hosts/authors say that the moving VF is a negative.

Click to expand...

Well I can only speak for myself and i am in the middle...not a needed thing for me but not a bad thing for those that want it.

KALEL33 said:

It's not fact that everyone would rather have a stable viewfinder,
but a vast majority probably do not.

Click to expand...

--

Agree, though it is not as simple as that because the majority of people get the stabilization method of the camera they choose and do not choose a method first.

The majority of people would also prefer all their lenses stabilized for little cost from what i read as well....both ways work.

neil

neil holmes said:

This really is a silly argument....That you think your opinions are
facts say it all to me and I will leave it there.

Click to expand...

I hope I am not in your Sh*t List ... That is if you keep one like tbcass does ;-)

Staywell my friend. It was a silly argument as you say. This had been pointed out several times including by me in this thread.

--
http://dakanji.com

'I make statements based on fact not predictions.'
KMSEA: 12:33:17 PM, Saturday, November 12, 2005 (GMT)

Dayo said:

Not just for me. It is a fact of human biology. Just like I will
say "BS!" to anyone that tells they can walk from Moscow to
Vladivostok in a day.

Click to expand...

That's not the same thing. That is a physical impossibility. Using methods to reduce shaking and seeing in the viewfinder the results of those methods is called Bio Feedback. Look it up.

Dayo said:

Dayo said:

So again here is how I interpret the "facts"....for YOU a shaky
viewfinder is not a good thing, for others it is not a problem.

Click to expand...

This is where the emotional get all worked up and read things into
statements. I never said a shaky VF is a bad thing and a problem for
anyone. I don't think it is a problem. What I said that having your
VF shake is not an advantage over having it stable as was claimed.
There is a difference between both statements my dear friend.

Click to expand...

Responses like the following are where I have a problem with you.

Me

"I would suggest that an unstabilized viewfinder can help you better
hand-hold the camera by providing better feedback."

You

"That is pure BS."

What you are saying is that I am completely wrong. Yet I know for a FACT that seeing the shaking in the viewfinder helped me learn to stabilize my self by providing immediate feedback long before stabilization even existed in cameras.

The fact that you dismissed my claim so off handidly, and did it repeatedly, is what ticked me off. You used terms like "Rubbish, Bunk and BS without, in the slightest way, acknowledging that what I say could have some validity for me, and therefore, others. We're all different. What works for one might not work for another.

The next time someone makes a statement that you totally disagree with remember, you could be wrong. Nobody's perfect. Disagreeing in a polite manor while giving the other person the benefit of the doubt is much better.
--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

... you are totally wrong again.

Tensing oneself after looking through a shaky VF is not, and has nothing to do with, Bio Feedback.

YOU look it up.

--
http://dakanji.com

'I make statements based on fact not predictions.'
KMSEA: 12:33:17 PM, Saturday, November 12, 2005 (GMT)

Dayo said:

... you are totally wrong again.

Tensing oneself after looking through a shaky VF is not, and has
nothing to do with, Bio Feedback.

YOU look it up.

--

Click to expand...

http://www.sarmac.com.br/download/Testes/varella/Pervasive%20Computing/Volume%205/Volume%205_4/01717369.pdf

This is about feedback training .. Bio feedback is a bit more specific too autonomic functions mostly like breathing control.. but feedback systems like this are used to refine physical performance in sports and I may have heard BioFeedback used an example of how it works.

The meter in the camera is doing the same showing feedback and quantifying it in a way just "feeling the camera is steady can't"

One of the things anyone can look at is using the meter to help you find an arm bracing position that steadies the camera.

Some people might be able to judge small scale movements, some might not think about using the info to adjust their own movement, but for others the extra info is used to adjust how you hold the camera.

--
---------
Ken - A700 Owner..
Some of my work at:
http://gallery.cascadephotoworks.com

Dayo said:

... you are totally wrong again.

Tensing oneself after looking through a shaky VF is not, and has
nothing to do with, Bio Feedback.

YOU look it up.

Click to expand...

Your right, while maybe not technically biofeedback in the strictest sense the movement in the viewfinder does let me know if the techniques I am using to reduce movement are working. Actually tensing by itself will not work because that can actually cause you to shake. It's more about relaxing, breathing properly, standing in a stable position and being as still as possible. True Biofeedback uses relaxation techniques to control autonomic functions while I am using visual clues to increase stability and reduce shake.

Of course this doesn't change the fact that seeing movement in the viewfinder does help me to hold a camera more steady. That my friend is the truth.
--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

Seeing the distress it caused you, I guess I shouldn't have expressed my disagreement with you in the way I did.

Sorry.

--
http://dakanji.com

'I make statements based on fact not predictions.'
KMSEA: 12:33:17 PM, Saturday, November 12, 2005 (GMT)

Dayo said:

Seeing the distress it caused you, I guess I shouldn't have expressed
my disagreement with you in the way I did.

Sorry.

--

Click to expand...

Just say "I don't see how it can help.." rather an BS... I can tell you it helps
Some might ignore the meter and it won't help them

--
---------
Ken - A700 Owner..
Some of my work at:
http://gallery.cascadephotoworks.com

I expect to move up to a DSLR soon. I have decided to go with Nikon or Canon, in part because of two image-stabilization considerations:

1. In-lens stabilization provides a stabilized image in the viewfinder, and appears to be more effective than in-body systems (in terms of F-stops gained). See

http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4615/image-stabilization-special-stop-the-shake-lab-report-page1.html

2. I expect that, within a few years, Nikon and Canon will both offer in-body stabilized DSLRs. Not only will this provide stabilization for their non-stabilized lenses, but when used with stabilized lenses, the two systems would be able talk to one another and (possibly) coordinate their efforts to provide even better stabilization. See
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/image_stabilization.html

Cary