[ron1863]

The following is a couple of quotes from a professional photography site "Luminous Landscapes" re anti-vibration. From a personal viewpoint I prefer it in-body as all lenses benefit:

"Whether due to patent restrictions, or just engineering decisions, Sony has adopted an in-body vibration reduction system rather than one built into individual lenses. From what I have read and my own empirical evidence, it appears to be every bit as competent as the IS and VR systems that Canon and Nikon build into some of their lenses.

And therein lies one of the benefits of the Sony approach. Being in the body rather than the lens means that every lens enjoys the benefits of vibration reduction, not just specially designed ones. While moderate focal length and wide angle lenses don't require stabilization as much as do long lenses, they definitely can benefit from it, and the two stop gain that it provides is most welcome, especially when using specialty optics that wouldn't normally have stabilization.

There is a downside though to in-body shake reduction, and that is that its effect isn't visible in the viewfinder. I don't see this as a deal breaker, but some folks might. Of course it does nothing to change the look of the eventual picture taken, though it does add a comfort level when shooting to be able to see that shake is being reduced.

Sony does provide a real-time gauge in the viewfinder that shows how much shake reduction is going to be applied, which is helpful.

One area where the latest Canon and Nikon IS and VR lens systems have a small edge is that they sense when the camera is tripod mounted and turn themselves down or off. The A900 doesn't do this, and so with the camera firmly tripod mounted if you don't turn stabilization off you're in fact going to get blurry images as the system tries in vain to compensate for vibration that isn't there. I find that I usually remember to turn anti-shake off, but if I do I invariably then forget to turn it back on when switching back to hand holding."



"What is less common is that the camera features in-body image stabilization through sensor vibration, the first time that this has been accomplished on a full-frame camera. I have found this to be very much to my liking, especially with medium to wide angle lenses which heretofore have not been able to experience the benefits of stabilization. While less needed than with long lenses, it simply provides the ability to hand hold at lower speeds and in lower light situations, and therefore is most welcome.

"The ability to have stabilization with all lenses, even those from third party lens makers, is also appreciated. The newly acquired Sigma 50-500mm is looking to be quite an excellent lens, and frankly, if I wasn't using it on a camera body with stabilization I likely wouldn't have considered purchasing it. I have the Canon 400mm f/5.6, which is an exceptional lens, but one which I rarely use because it lacks IS. With this in mind a lens such as the 50-500mm would not have appealed, but even after just a few days of use, as this article is being finalized, I am finding myself hand holding the lens at 400-500mm at speeds as low as 1/125 sec, and getting very fine results.

The bottom line on this long-winded discussion is that I am finding the Sony's in-body stabilization to be very much to my liking, and something that makes me hesitate every time I go to pick up another camera which doesn't have it."