....And given that Sony's "VR" is in-camera, that part isn't a big deal.
Would be nice if Nikon put the VR in the bodies instead of in the lenses. Then we'd only have to pay for it once instead of everytime we purchase a VR lens. I didn't know Sony made any cameras that way. As always, thanks for the info!
You can only do it with mirrorless.
Dont quote me but i think the new Pentax has IBS
Dont quote me but i think the new Pentax has IBS
I can see having it in Live View situations (which would be great for DSLR video), but I don't know how it's possible with a mirror in the way.
If you weren't interested in looking it up then you're probably not interested enough in reading all this, but in case there's someone who is, here's an explanation of what each type is and what's good/bad about each.
https://photographylife.com/lens-stabilization-vs-in-camera-stabilization
If you weren't interested in looking it up then you're probably not interested enough in reading all this, but in case there's someone who is, here's an explanation of what each type is and what's good/bad about each.
https://photographylife.com/lens-stabilization-vs-in-camera-stabilization
Optically-stabilized lenses are more effective – while there is no science with clear examples behind this statement (at least that I know of), both Canon and Nikon argue that image stabilization can be fine-tuned and tweaked on individual lenses, which would make image stabilization more effective when compared to generic in-camera stabilization. Tuning image stabilization based on lens features such as size, weight and focal length can provide the benefit of enabling different options for image stabilization.
Image Stabilization can degrade bokeh – this one might be a surprise for you, but it is true. Because the light that passes through the lens is shifted from its optical path when image stabilization is engaged, it can negatively affect lens bokeh.
Has anyone heard about the ability to fine-tune/tweak VR on any manufacturers' lenses?
...
Has anyone noticed a degradation of bokeh due to VR?
The point of the first statement is the every manufacturer fine tunes the VR on that particular lens as a part of the design and release of the lens. VR is designed to be as effective as possible for the lens design. In-body stabilization is a one-size fits all proposition unless the body manufacturer is willing to build in stabilization profiles for individual lenses (likely their own). No matter if you're shooting at 16mm with a lightweight kit lens or at 500mm with an adapter super zoom, the IS system is the same.
As for the other one, take a look at most images shot with a 150-500/600 zoom. These are almost exclusively shot with VR on and I cannot think of a time in my life where someone has said, "Look at that gorgeous bokeh", in one of my shots using that lens. I've never bothered to compare images taken with and without VR at the long lens of my 150-500mm, but I do know that I've often lamented the harshness of some of the OOF regions. How much of that is the glass and how much is VR is hard to say because, in general, I'm not going to be shooting at 500mm without VR handheld, and I'm not going to shoot with it on a tripod. Suffice it to say I don't doubt it. In general I find sharpness is better achieved without VR when you can achieve a shutter speed that eliminates movement, so if that's the case why wouldn't bokeh be negatively impacted as well?