Does Image Stabilization really do anything?

Dear folks, you'll love in-body IS if you ever tried the latest Olympus E-3! Canon and Nikon try to avoid this issue just because they get $ from IS/VR lenses, instead of the advatages to the consumer, that's commercial world.

E3 has 5 EV steps anti-shake to the most. Which lens from Canon or Nikon may offer and for how much $? I also want to say it applies to traditional manual lenses as well. With one body, how much $ you may save from IS/VR?

Never trust business men.
 
We can argue about the merits of in-lens stabilisation and in-body stabilisation if we want... Canon & Nikon users are convinced in-lens is the way to go and the rest of us will be equally convinced of the merits of in-body... but that's not what the original post was about. The OP was trying to decide between a Nikon D80 and a Nikon D40x...

Basically what you need to know is that neither the D80 or D40x will have image stabilisation in the camera body. No Nikon dSLR has image stabilisation in the camera body. Instead Nikon put stabilisation technology - which they call Vibration Reduction or VR - in the lens. It is not in all lenses. It will be in some lenses, and is identified by the lens having VR in its name. It works with all their dSLRs, and it works well as described above. If you can comfortably afford to buy VR lenses instead of non-VR ones, then sure it is worth it.

Image stabilisation or shake reduction in the camera body is something used by other companies, and not something you need to worry about if comparing two Nikon cameras.
 
I forgot there was an original question........:mrgreen:

Either camera is a good one. VR lenses cost more, but are a nice tool if you want one.

Rock on!! :band:
 
but that's not what the original post was about. The OP was trying to decide between a Nikon D80 and a Nikon D40x...

Actually, the OPs question was: "Is the image stabilization just a tool for noob amateurs or is it useful when using a digital slr??" and "Does Image Stabilization really do anything?" So those of us who discussed in-body stabilization really were on-topic. ;)
 
Well for an amateur like me, IS is of great help since stabilizes the image shake while taking snaps....Since I am amateur, I like it a lot...but I feel its of no comparision w.r.t a Tripod.
 
Well for an amateur like me, IS is of great help since stabilizes the image shake while taking snaps....Since I am amateur, I like it a lot...but I feel its of no comparision w.r.t a Tripod.

How about the comparison of not having to carry a tripod ;) They each have their uses. Don't be under the mistaken assumption that one replaces the other. VR was never intended to let you take long exposures at night, and tripods weren't designed for motorsport photography or weddings.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top