IS in Camera or IS in lens?

[Gruditch]

Eccles you naughty boy, I told Lisa that, "I think he's on a wind up", so I didn't respond. It was a good one though, I would of bet good money that my mate Roger, was never gonna just let you get away with talking such rubbish.

Gruditch

[Rogerdodge]

Eccles
You trolled the bait through the water and I rose to it!
Well done.

Roger

[eccles]

Although I was winding you up, there was an element of truth in my comments. I forget which lens it was but I heard once that there were two versions of a Canon lens, one with IS the other without, and the non-stabilised version was apparently slightly better optically.
And of course not all Canon/Nikon lenses are stabilised, whereas ALL Sony/Minolta lenses are.
That said, I've seen some fabulous bird shots from the Canon 100-400 IS, so in the right hands it's a powerful photographic tool.

[PeterD]

Just to join in this debate, I own an Olympus E3 which has in-body IS. The attached shot was taken hand held 1/10s @ f4 ISO 1000 and fl 60mm. It is a good demonstration of what in-body IS can achieve. I also use Sigma lenses and IS works well with these and my Zuiko lenses. The stabalisation takes into account the fl and therefore is effective whatever 4/3 lens is fitted.

Sorry the photo is not of a butterfly but I believe it illustrates the point very well.

PeterD

[NickB]

I have an interest in that now I have no IS but a DSLR and lenses I wish sometimes for the in-body IS in my old Panasonic FZ50! The image quality now is much better, but even with monopod getting them pin-sharp is difficult. I regularly hand-held down to 1/25th with good results on my Panasonic. But now I look at those old images closely, the noise is apparent at ISO 200. When/if I can afford the IS versions of Sigma or Tamron oe even Nikkor macros I will certainly be tempted!