In-lens vs in-body vibration reduction

[DouglasUrner]

It's interesting to see the surge of bodies being introduced with a vibration reduction feature. I'm curious about this -- on the one hand it seems like a good thing. You buy it once in the body and all your lenses are now VR equiped. And every time you buy a new body you can get a VR upgrade at the same time

On the other hand, is there a benefit to having the VR components tuned to the lens? Will there be a long term savings if you're not buying a new set of VR components with every new body? Or did Canon and Nikon take off on the wrong tack and we'll see them come around in a couple of years?

Doug

[Gavin]

It seems like a really good idea to me, I only wounder if it might make the system more delicate, and be more prone to failure.

I guess time will tell, however I like the idea. What cameras is it being used in?

[DouglasUrner]

IIRC Konica/Minolta started it, and Sony kept it in the Alpha, Pentax is using it in the K10D, I'm pretty sure that there are one or two others.

Doug

[AndrewCassino]

Originally Posted by DouglasUrner

On the other hand, is there a benefit to having the VR components tuned to the lens? Will there be a long term savings if you're not buying a new set of VR components with every new body? Or did Canon and Nikon take off on the wrong tack and we'll see them come around in a couple of years?
Doug

I don't think it can be said that Canon and Nikon went off on the wrong tack, they developed their IS and VR stabilization systems for film cameras, where clearly it is not feasible to apply the motion compensation at the film plane!

It seems from most reports that the in-camera stabilization system in Minolta (now Sony) DSLRs is a little bit less effective than the current Canon and Nikon in-lens systems, and early (unofficial) reports on the Pentax K10D are similar. Meanwhile Canon is improving its in-lens systems, the upcoming Canon 70-200 f4 IS L lens is supposed to provide up to 4 stops of stabilization. Presumably Nikon will be able to make similar improvements and the gap may continue to widen. But who's to say the in-camera systems cannot be improved?

Meanwhile there is a third alternative coming down the pike, the so-called "flutter shutter" that will could find it's way to market in a few years, and has the potential of completely obsoleting the current systems:

Mitsubishi Electric Develops Deblurring Flutter Shutter Camera - Emerging Technology

This system has already been demonstrated by a researcher that hacked it into a Canon Rebel camera for the grand sum of $500.

It seems that the future is harder than ever to predict!

Andrew

[Spencer.Boerup]

To me, I just don't see the the benefits of in-camera VR/IS. I don't see it as correctingthe problem, just trying to anticipate or compensate for the problem:camera shake.

IS/VR on the lens is correcting the problem, camera shake. I think the body is much more stable (and the sensor) and less prone to shake vs. the lens. I just can't buy the in-camera VR, also, I've never tried it. I tested out one of the new Minolta dSLRs at the store that supposively had the VR on the sensor. I couldn't tell a difference (maybe because the mirror wasn't being changed, just the sensor, so I couldn't "see" a difference). With IS lenses, you can TELL immediately how it is working. With in-camera, I think your lens is still prone to shaking quite a bit.

I would bet my money that the future of IS and VR stabalizations for in-lens stabilization will pay off in the end, big time. Someone enlighten me if my commen-sense is off. That "flutter shutter" looks mighty interesting, but nothing to do with vibration reduction.

[AndrewCassino]

Originally Posted by Spencer.Boerup

IS/VR on the lens is correcting the problem, camera shake. With IS lenses, you can TELL immediately how it is working. With in-camera, I think your lens is still prone to shaking quite a bit.

Spencer, I think something needs to be clarified here. The in-lens IS/VR systems actually do NOT reduce lens shake even in the tiniest amount. Those systems are still only compensating for lens shake, by precisely altering the optical path through the lens to compensate for lens movement. To reduce actual camera/lens shake would require a gyroscope setup (which are available and used extensively in aerial photography).

But it is still true, I think, that an in-lens system is able to compensate better than an in-body system. This because the correction occurs in the lens at the native magnification of the lens. Whereas the sensor-based systems must compensate for the magnified vibrations of the lens - it's got to be able to move further and faster to compensate than a lens element would have to, particulalry at long focal lengths or high magnifications. I hope that makes sense, it's hard to put into words. Actually, maybe that's what you were saying?

And you do raise another EXCELLENT point, that having IS/VR in the lens does give the photographer a view of the stabilized image, which systems that stabilize in-camera do not do. (Presumably a camera with internal shake reduction and an electronic viewfinder would show the stabilized image as well). With longer lenses I find the visual steadying of the image an invaluable aid to precisely framing my shot, so that is a important reason to prefer the in-lens systems in my book.

As I understand flutter-shutter operation, it would not provide any visual steadying of the viewfinder image, either.

Thanks for bringing these points up!

Andrew

[ChrisPerry]

There is one significant difference - the lens-stabilized method will also stabilize what you see in the viewfinder. the sensor stabilizer can't do that with an optical viewfinder.

The way you hold a camera and lens will also be a factor - the lens stabilizer is (usually) at the fulcrum point and should need to move less than the sensor stabilizer method.

Other thoughts - if you have a sensor stabilizer ALL your lenses are stabilized at no extra cost, so you pay only one time for the extra hardware. On the other hand, if it goes nuts or breaks you're out a body till it's fixed, as opposed to just a lens.

A sensor stabilizer is apparently lots cheaper to make - the sony camera is under $1000 - IS and camera, where as adding IS to a lens results in a $500 jump in price. (70-200 F4 or 2.8 to the IS versions) It looks like canon is adding more and more IS lenses, so perhaps one day soon that's all you'll be able to get - it certainly doesn't look like they're gonna introduce a sensor stabilizer anytime soon.

I have a 5 year old $250 video camera that has IS in it so why it's taking this long to get to still camera I don't know.

[Pro Photo Store]

Visit the B&H Pro Photo Store for the best Gear Prices and regular specials!

Brilliant Color for any Digital SLR
White Balance Cap
The Pros Agree on ColorRight
What People Are Saying