darkhorseSG wrote:
And why can't Nikon/Canon put VR in the camera body itself, just like an OM-D? In-Body stabilization will free the lenses from having a VR - hopefully leading to better optics, lower weight and lower prices.
I believe that optical IS is better than IBIS for many of the same reasons people have mentioned, but think about this. Take a long lens like a 500mm. Any vibration is going to translate into large movements of the camera/lens. There is a limit to how much the sensor can move to correct this because it's location is back near the focal plain. The optical method placed the optics that need to move far from that focal plain so the correction needed is much smaller.
IBIS (in-body stabilization) is a one sized fits all method with no focal length being optimized. In-lens VR/IS allows the maker to have a correction of movements to match the lens focual length and speed.
When you're are looking through the lens at the subject, say a small bird on a limb, IBIS does not stabilize that view. That bird might be wobbling around such that you don't know if it is in focus to accurately framed. In lens IS locks down the optics so the bird freezes momentarily allowing all the above to occur.
Think about lenses like the Sigma 150-500 and others with optical in-lens method. People with Sony and Pentax cameras also use this lens. What method of IS do they normally turn off and what do they leave on? As it turns out, most turn off the native IBIS and leave on the in-lens stabilization. There's a reason. They also see the advantages when both are available both in view and end result.
The big problem I see out there is the over use of stabilization and novices never learning good hand holding methods and shooting technique. I know that I can and I'd guess most seasoned photographers here can hold steadier at just as long shutter durations as many novice photographers trust to IS/VR. All it takes is good learned shooting techniques. IS/VR is not a panacea for poor technique. It's just an added tool when you're using good technique. Many lenses in the wide to normal zoom ranges just don't need it. It can add weight and can add to randomly held poorer images at times, especially at higher shutter speeds. Many jobbing pros don't want or need that.
If the image is truly important and important enough it has to be tack sharp say for a magazine cover, you're going to do better on a tripod and often with professional lighting. The 24-70 f/2.8 by both Nikon and now Canon was designed for those photographers. The 24-120 f/4 VR was designed for the rest of us.
That all said, as I get older, I'm learning that more and more, even with good holding technique I can benefit from VR in appropriate situations, appropriate being the key word here. Inappropriate might be when I have the time to use a tripod on a still subject. I've even learned to love the VR on my 16-35 f/4 in certain circumstances, but the lens still defaults to VR off as it does on the rest of my VR equiped lenses.
You might wish to read Thom Hogan's writeup on VR. VR 101 for a better written explaination.
http://www.bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm
See if this doesn't better help you on this subject. *Great question and good luck.* Have fun.
