Why in lens image stabilization is better, explained

Started Jul 13, 2011 | Discussions thread
MadsR Senior Member • Posts: 2,235
Re: Why in lens image stabilization is better, explained

Just to add a little non-sence to this perfectly insane argument.

  1. Though technically correct that the shaken image goes through the camera to the viewfinder on a DSLR, it is not an actual problem, since your eye and brain is so fast at reading the photons that you never actually see the shake...

  2. Since the focusing subsystem in a DSLR is also independent of the shutter speed and how much you shake the camera (Sure if you shake bad enough and fast enough you can fool it.. but then you should see a doctor) you don't get any adverse effects on autofocus either.

  3. Nikon decided on this system back in the film days, at that time it was not practical to shake the film, so shaking the lens was the only possibility... They have tried to justify using this ancient technology in still cameras ever since digital took over...

Basically there is only good argument for having the stabilization in the lens is video.

The one good reason for stabilizing the sensor is that it will work with any lens as long as the camera knows how (know length of lens)

Other arguments are generally void because either system works, Nikon have proven that a bad sensor system will not work as well as good lens system (surprise), Sony have proven the opposite (even more surprise) and in µ4/3 it have been proven that both systems works well and is entirely a matter of taste and utility. (More Panasonic users shoot film, more Olympus users have old lenses)

 MadsR's gear list:MadsR's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +2 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow