Quote:
Originally Posted by Ukwildlifeo  On the body IS vs in camera IS the only pro either way I can find is an article by Nikon. Do you have a link to someting else please. I know a few people who have shot hand held macros with body IS systems, even if they are inferior.
I agree when it come to pro level then its canon or nikon, mainly because there arnt any pro level by any of the other brands - but at entry level and semi pro the options are not so limited |
ISTRC seeing a test report (German site?) that showed that
in-body IS was at least as good as lens IS. I've said before on this site that lens manufacturers usually go to great pains to ensure that all lens elements in a lens are firmly fixed and aligned on the same optical axis - and that to then start 'jiggling' one around to gain IS must inevitably result in optical compromises. It also seems to me that because of the lower inertia of a slip of silicon, compared to a lump of glass, the mechanics involved would be lighter, be less prone to wear and the servos draw less current in an in-body IS system.
Not sure what you mean by "its canon or nikon, mainly because there arnt any pro level by any of the other brands" - the performances of the Olympus 'pro' and 'top pro' lenses are rarely equaled, let alone surpassed. Have a look at some independent reviews.
Jim