I shoot both 35mm and digital. Lenses that work with both cameras, I use Nikon, are much more important to me than shake reduction. I believe that there is a tendency to design lenses that include shake reduction that do not work with 35mm cameras and this is not acceptable to me.
Please briefly comment on the addition of image stabilization.
- Log in or register to post comments
I'm sure you realize what it is like not to carry a heavy tripod into the wild and not necessarily be restricted by a blind because of the heavy tripod. You do not have set up time anymore to great extent because of this and you are able to move around relatively free.
The typical consumer based all-in-one zoom lens user can benefit from using either the lens or camera body based approach to image stabilization. However, if you are an action shooter who relies on long lenses to capture your subjects, then lens based stabilization is the tool you need to up your percentage of keepers. It responds faster, is more accurate, and even more fuel efficient (less battery drain) than camera body stabilization. Now ask yourself, who are the camera makers with a large base of big glass users and who are not. It should be pretty easy to figure from there why a company favors one approach to vibration control over another. For the photographer its a matter of choosing the right tool for the job. Choices are a good thing.
I find them useful. However, I'd like to see a little more technical information. For example, I often shoot from a pitching sailboat. The degree of movement is somewhere between hand held, where IS is useful, and panning, where it is not. I'm still not sure if it's helping me in this setting.