How about that Shake Reduction?

[bla]

Hi everyone,

I've been reading a lot about this shake reduction system. Just how effective is it? Around 3 stops down seems pretty significant. If so, why haven't some manufacturers integrated this into their cameras and instead opt for VR lenses?

I'm kinda curious about this so anything would be useful!

Thanks!

 

[fmw]

Yes, it appears to be significant. I've only owned a VR lens for 1/2 a day and made three exposures but it seems to work as advertised. I believe at least one of the manufacturers includes the feature in the camera body. It is Panasonic or Sony or maybe both. Someone else will certainly know.

 

[Digital Matt]

I think the reason that it's not incorporated into all camera bodies is two fold. The #1 and most obvious reason, is that they can sell big expensive lenses with IS or VR and make money. In reality though, I think that the technology probably works better when it is custom tailored to the lens that is being used, and that is why most companies put it in the lenses themselves.

 

[Don Simon]

Well if by "most" companies you mean "two"... the big two that is.

Nikon and Canon offer shake/vibration reduction in some of their lenses. Minolta put it in their digital SLR bodies and that has been adopted/adapter by Sony, and Pentax have now started using shake reduction technology in their DSLR bodies too. Panasonic did the same for their compact models.

I think it's fairly safe to say that the in-lens VR system is more effective for long telephoto work. Good in-camera systems however still let you get away with shots you otherwise wouldn't, and IMO there is something to be said for being able to reduce camera shake on any lens instead of having to buy specific ones. Which is more useful depends on your priorities, your budget and what kind of photography you see in your future I guess.

 

[Alex_B]

well, shake - compensation can be optimised to the particular lens (focal lengths) if it is incorporated into the lens (50mm needs totally different mechanical amplitudes in compensation than a 500mm lens). Further, if included in the lens, it also works for film and not just for digital.

Anyway, I am only experience with it being built into the lens, and the effect is stunning to me, works very well (but drains your battery slightly faster than when turned off ).

 

[Don Simon]

FWIW the degree of compensation can be adjusted for different focal lengths with in-camera systems too. I don't know how the Minolta/Sony system works, but with my Pentax it automatically sets it based on the focal length using modern AF lenses, or with older lenses it asks you to enter the focal length.

 

[Alex_B]

FWIW the degree of compensation can be adjusted for different focal lengths with in-camera systems too. I don't know how the Minolta/Sony system works, but with my Pentax it automatically sets it based on the focal length using modern AF lenses, or with older lenses it asks you to enter the focal length.

adjusted it has to be anyway, but optimized means that the actual meachism compensating shake has to cope with very different amplitudes for ultra tele compared to standard focal lengths. And any mechanism has a range where it is optimized, where it can cope best.

i know several people who shoot film who are very happy that it is in the lens and not in the digital body