From: David J Taylor on 25 May 2010 13:47
"John Navas" <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>With an image moving significantly and unpredictably in the viewfinder,
>>accurate framing is rather more difficult than with a stable image. I
>>find in-lens IS a major advantage on a DSLR for that reason alone
>>focal lengths in the 400mm+ region, hand-held, from an unstable platform
>>or in windy conditions). ...
> I have an easier time framing properly and get much better results with
> IS turned off for viewing on my compact digital super-zoom in the 400mm+
> region, hand-held, from an unstable platform, in windy conditions, my
> normal working environment.
Certainly not my experience.
> "Different strokes for different folks."
From: SMS on 25 May 2010 14:05
On 25/05/10 10:05 AM, David J Taylor wrote:
> With an image moving significantly and unpredictably in the viewfinder,
> accurate framing is rather more difficult than with a stable image. I
> find in-lens IS a major advantage on a DSLR for that reason alone
> (talking focal lengths in the 400mm+ region, hand-held, from an unstable
> platform or in windy conditions). For the best results you should
> continue to follow normal holding practices.
Precisely. And moving images are typically what you're dealing with with
a long telephoto lens and where a tripod is impractical. Especially
wildlife shots and shots of sporting events.
OTOH if you're using IS to gain a couple of stops in low light (often as
an alternative to a flash) you may not care about in-lens IS/VR. If
you're taking landscapes shots then you can get by with in-camera IS/VR
and save some money--but you probably wouldn't do this because you're so
much better off sticking with Canon or Nikon for other reasons.
If you've ever been on a safari, or even up to Denali N.P. or
Yellowstone, when you're trying to get wildlife shots at a distance the
in-lens IS/VR is a much better choice than in-camera.
Practically speaking, it's an issue that the vast majority of D-SLR
users are not going to encounter because Canon and Nikon do not offer
in-camera VR/IS on their D-SLRs and all the other manufacturers are in
the low single digits in terms of market share (except Sony who is in
the high single digits). There are so many reasons to stick with Canon
and Nikon (other than the type of VR/IS) that the type of VR/IS is a
From: SMS on 25 May 2010 14:07
On 25/05/10 9:57 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article<c0tnv5pe0gdb4pdv236et7f64f72p7vq4p(a)4ax.com>, John Navas
> <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>> For people moving to a D-SLR from a P&S or ZLR, they are unlikely to
>>>> understand the advantages of in-lens VR/IS.
>>> They only need to look through the viewfinder with a long telephoto lens
>>> attached! Watch the image stabilise when the VR is enabled. Little
>>> understanding required - just a demonstration at the local shop.
>> His claim is absurd (what a shock), since so many compact digital
>> cameras have image stabilization.
> he's talking about slrs, not compact digicams.
Correct. As I stated, "For people moving to a D-SLR from a P&S or ZLR,
they are unlikely to understand the advantages of in-lens VR/IS. This
thread makes it abundantly clear that this statement is true for many
From: John Navas on 25 May 2010 14:13
On Tue, 25 May 2010 11:05:49 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com>
wrote in <4bfc117d$0$1642$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>:
>If you've ever been on a safari, or even up to Denali N.P. or
>Yellowstone, when you're trying to get wildlife shots at a distance the
>in-lens IS/VR is a much better choice than in-camera.
Q. How would you know?
A. You don't.
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
From: Chris Malcolm on 25 May 2010 17:51
In rec.photo.digital nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <mvnlv592n2st82b9f5nja62asm8062mtoj(a)4ax.com>, John Navas
> <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> That's only because it's a cheap VR system.
> a lot of vr systems are cheap. some aren't.
>> A camera system can be more sophisticated and capable,
>> with the extra function buried in on board electronics
>> and amortized over multiple lenses.
> a lens system can be just as sophisticated and capable, if not more so,
> since it can be tuned to the specifics of each lens, not one size fits
In body IS isn't one size fits all. It reads the necessary parameters
from the lens, the most important being focal length, and adjusts
Warning: none of the above is indisputable fact.