In-Body SR vs. In-Lens SR Pros and Cons?

uchinakuri · 09-20-2010, 05:01 PM

When I was looking to jump into DLSRs, one of the really huge things that attracted me to buy my K-x (and well, jump into the Pentax family) is the in-body SR feature.

That being said, are there any cons to having it in the body, as opposed to the lens? I figure that Canon/Nikon have a vast amount of resources available and they've gone and put it in their lenses instead. Do you think this was purely a business strategy to sell lenses at higher margins? Or are there actual technical benefits of an in-lens SR system vs. an in-body SR system?

Like, is there any kind of trade-off like this: Pentax has in-body SR, so all their lenses can benefit, but its SR isn't as effective as an in-lens SR system?

Thanks!

DaveHolmes · 09-20-2010, 05:29 PM

I also have a K-x as my first DSLR and think this is a great question for those who have used canikon systems...
Is in-body shake reduction as effective as as in-lens SR???

Dan · 09-20-2010, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by DaveHolmes

...
Is in-body shake reduction as effective as as in-lens SR???

All I can say is that is far more effective when it comes to the vast majority of Nikon lenses that lack vibration reduction.

I really like lightweight, compact prime lenses. There are not a lot of such lenses with built-in vibration reduction.

I am also a big fan of the Voigtlander APO-Lanthars. These superb lenses are stabilized on my Pentax, but not my Nikon. I find that with a bit of practice the Pentax SR is very effective. Its universality is a HUGE advantage for Pentax.

Dan

aleonx3 · 09-20-2010, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by uchinakuri

I figure that Canon/Nikon have a vast amount of resources available and they've gone and put it in their lenses instead.
Thanks!

No quite, Canon and Nikon have implemented image stablization in the Lens first in the film camera and then in digital camera. Pentax and Sony came late to the game in the digital camera, but that also allow them to have the option to put that feature in the sensor. Canon and Nikon can not change that strategy as they are already too much into that technology - in a sense a business decision not to implement in the sensor, not to sabotage their high end high margin VR/IS lens.

Marc Sabatella · 09-20-2010, 05:43 PM

Canon and Nikon did it with the lens because that was the only viable option with the film cameras they developed the system for. I'm sure they are wishing they hadn't gone down that road now, but it's too late to change. But for long focal lengths, lens stabilization *is* a bit more effective.

lurchlarson · 09-20-2010, 05:48 PM - **1 Like**

The two systems are essentially the same in effectiveness.

Lens Based

Pros:
The stabilization is fit exactly to the lens
You can see the stabilization in effect through the viewfinder

Cons
The lens is a lot heavier
The lens is a lot more expensive.
It's not necessarily any better.

Sensor based

Pros
Works with all lenses
Just as effective as lens based stabilization

Cons
Can't see the effect through the viewfinder.

I am a big fan of body-based stabilization.

Peter Zack · 09-20-2010, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by lurchlarson

The two systems are essentially the same in effectiveness.

Lens Based

Pros:
The stabilization is fit exactly to the lens
You can see the stabilization in effect through the viewfinder

Cons
The lens is a lot heavier
The lens is a lot more expensive.
It's not necessarily any better.

Sensor based

Pros
Works with all lenses
Just as effective as lens based stabilization

Cons
Can't see the effect through the viewfinder.

I am a big fan of body-based stabilization.

Shooting both Nikon and Pentax, I'd agree with all of this.

One thing I wonder about is long-term durability. We usually buy lenses thinking they will last 20+ years and bodies maybe 5 years or less. So with the added mechanism and floating element, will these lenses last as long as a lens that has less moving parts (where all the lens elements are fixed in the barrel).

Also don't forget that there are very few if any stabilized lenses under 100mm. With Pentax, you have everything stabalized.

hcarvalhoalves · 09-20-2010, 09:58 PM

In-body SR means it's there. Always. For all lenses. Even the old. And the soviet knock-offs that you find by $5.

That's a big pro for me.

If you have doubts about it's effectiveness, turn it off from the menu and go out shooting at night. Count how many keepers you got. Marvel at a world of CaNikon with cheap lenses without IS, then turn SR again on your K-x and enjoy.

JoepLX3 · 09-20-2010, 10:29 PM

How much can K-7 and K-5 correct more than K-x and K-r?
- FYI: K-x and K-r only shift in two directions, K-7 and K-5 will also rotate the sensor

Guess this is close to same as another thread I started (probably one can be closed)...

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/115196-shake-reduc...n-k-7-k-r.html

JoepLX3 · 09-20-2010, 10:31 PM

And how about impact on Video?
- Is it OK to do in-body stabilization during recording video?

Wheatfield · 09-20-2010, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by JoepLX3

And how about impact on Video?
- Is it OK to do in-body stabilization during recording video?

It's a bit noisy unless you are using an external microphone.

simico · 09-21-2010, 02:24 AM

Originally posted by lurchlarson

The two systems are essentially the same in effectiveness.

Lens Based

Cons
The lens is a lot heavier
The lens is a lot more expensive.
It's not necessarily any better.

Try any new Sigma lens with OS and your opinion will change. For example 17-70 f/2.8-4 HSM OS lens is cheaper than DA 17-70 SDM, not really heavier and it's OS is clearly better than in-body SR. All owners of OS lenses I know personally turned off SR on their K-7 / K-x and use the superior OS of the lens.

aleonx3 · 09-21-2010, 02:48 AM

Originally posted by lurchlarson

The two systems are essentially the same in effectiveness.

Lens Based

Pros:
The stabilization is fit exactly to the lens
You can see the stabilization in effect through the viewfinder

Cons
The lens is a lot heavier
The lens is a lot more expensive.
It's not necessarily any better.

Sensor based

Pros
Works with all lenses
Just as effective as lens based stabilization

Cons
Can't see the effect through the viewfinder.

I am a big fan of body-based stabilization.

Originally posted by Peter Zack

Shooting both Nikon and Pentax, I'd agree with all of this.

One thing I wonder about is long-term durability. We usually buy lenses thinking they will last 20+ years and bodies maybe 5 years or less. So with the added mechanism and floating element, will these lenses last as long as a lens that has less moving parts (where all the lens elements are fixed in the barrel).

Also don't forget that there are very few if any stabilized lenses under 100mm. With Pentax, you have everything stabalized.

While I agree with your assessment and validation, 99% of the time when you go to the camera shop and ask the sales person's suggestion on which camera to pick, the words usually go around like this: "in-lens based stabilization" is more effective and you are better off getting those than the other kind. That's why I never buy camera stuff from the local shop.

**Lowell Goudge** · 09-21-2010, 04:17 AM

Biggest Pro for in camera SR

I don't have to replace any of my 30+ lenses to use it

At the end of the day that is a big issue

As for perhaps gaining a stop in speed that is much more technique than technology. I had previously posted a 100% crop of a heron shot using an SMC300F4 with 1.7X AFTC (510 mm equivalent ) or considering the crop factor for ASP-C 750mm on full frame at 1/40. That is more than 4 stops with pentax's SR. I don't believe anyone with a 500mm lens is willing to post hand held at 1/20.

joele · 09-21-2010, 05:19 AM

Originally posted by simico

Try any new Sigma lens with OS and your opinion will change. For example 17-70 f/2.8-4 HSM OS lens is cheaper than DA 17-70 SDM, not really heavier and it's OS is clearly better than in-body SR. All owners of OS lenses I know personally turned off SR on their K-7 / K-x and use the superior OS of the lens.

Yeah it does depend on the lens, the nikon lenses I used with vr I couldn't see much advantage over Pentax SR (but they were 100mm or shorter).. But the Canon 70-200/4 IS has fantastic stabilization, much better than SR for sure.. The 300/f4 IS also beats my old F*300 using SR, but it isn't as good as the 70-200 IMO.. Its all about consistancy...

09-20-2010, 05:01 PM	#1
uchinakuri Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 57	In-Body SR vs. In-Lens SR Pros and Cons? When I was looking to jump into DLSRs, one of the really huge things that attracted me to buy my K-x (and well, jump into the Pentax family) is the in-body SR feature. That being said, are there any cons to having it in the body, as opposed to the lens? I figure that Canon/Nikon have a vast amount of resources available and they've gone and put it in their lenses instead. Do you think this was purely a business strategy to sell lenses at higher margins? Or are there actual technical benefits of an in-lens SR system vs. an in-body SR system? Like, is there any kind of trade-off like this: Pentax has in-body SR, so all their lenses can benefit, but its SR isn't as effective as an in-lens SR system? Thanks!

09-20-2010, 05:43 PM	#5
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Canon and Nikon did it with the lens because that was the only viable option with the film cameras they developed the system for. I'm sure they are wishing they hadn't gone down that road now, but it's too late to change. But for long focal lengths, lens stabilization is a bit more effective. Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 09-20-2010 at 07:26 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pros n Cons of the Leaf Shutter Lenses ?	knumbnutz	Pentax Medium Format	12	11-19-2009 03:15 PM
Limited edition prints - pros and cons?	Wombat	Photographic Industry and Professionals	5	07-30-2009 04:09 PM
Epson R1800... Pros/Cons	Buddha Jones	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	13	05-12-2009 07:14 PM
Pros and cons of the Pentax KM/2000	lesmore49	Pentax DSLR Discussion	109	05-01-2009 11:51 PM
Sigma 28-70 F/2.8 (Pros & Cons)	GLThorne	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	03-24-2007 07:10 AM

09-20-2010, 05:29 PM	#2
DaveHolmes Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 1,501	I also have a K-x as my first DSLR and think this is a great question for those who have used canikon systems... Is in-body shake reduction as effective as as in-lens SR???

09-20-2010, 05:35 PM	#3
Dan Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Pacific Northwest Posts: 325	Originally posted by DaveHolmes ... Is in-body shake reduction as effective as as in-lens SR??? All I can say is that is far more effective when it comes to the vast majority of Nikon lenses that lack vibration reduction. I really like lightweight, compact prime lenses. There are not a lot of such lenses with built-in vibration reduction. I am also a big fan of the Voigtlander APO-Lanthars. These superb lenses are stabilized on my Pentax, but not my Nikon. I find that with a bit of practice the Pentax SR is very effective. Its universality is a HUGE advantage for Pentax. Dan

09-20-2010, 05:39 PM	#4
aleonx3 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Brampton, Ontario Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,996	Originally posted by uchinakuri I figure that Canon/Nikon have a vast amount of resources available and they've gone and put it in their lenses instead. Thanks! No quite, Canon and Nikon have implemented image stablization in the Lens first in the film camera and then in digital camera. Pentax and Sony came late to the game in the digital camera, but that also allow them to have the option to put that feature in the sensor. Canon and Nikon can not change that strategy as they are already too much into that technology - in a sense a business decision not to implement in the sensor, not to sabotage their high end high margin VR/IS lens.

09-20-2010, 05:48 PM - 1 Like	#6
lurchlarson Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Oregon, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 681	The two systems are essentially the same in effectiveness. Lens Based Pros: The stabilization is fit exactly to the lens You can see the stabilization in effect through the viewfinder Cons The lens is a lot heavier The lens is a lot more expensive. It's not necessarily any better. Sensor based Pros Works with all lenses Just as effective as lens based stabilization Cons Can't see the effect through the viewfinder. I am a big fan of body-based stabilization.

09-20-2010, 05:56 PM	#7
Peter Zack Pentaxian Moderator Emeritus Join Date: May 2007 Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 10,643	Originally posted by lurchlarson The two systems are essentially the same in effectiveness. Lens Based Pros: The stabilization is fit exactly to the lens You can see the stabilization in effect through the viewfinder Cons The lens is a lot heavier The lens is a lot more expensive. It's not necessarily any better. Sensor based Pros Works with all lenses Just as effective as lens based stabilization Cons Can't see the effect through the viewfinder. I am a big fan of body-based stabilization. Shooting both Nikon and Pentax, I'd agree with all of this. One thing I wonder about is long-term durability. We usually buy lenses thinking they will last 20+ years and bodies maybe 5 years or less. So with the added mechanism and floating element, will these lenses last as long as a lens that has less moving parts (where all the lens elements are fixed in the barrel). Also don't forget that there are very few if any stabilized lenses under 100mm. With Pentax, you have everything stabalized.

09-20-2010, 09:58 PM	#8
hcarvalhoalves Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: São Paulo, Brazil Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,019	In-body SR means it's there. Always. For all lenses. Even the old. And the soviet knock-offs that you find by $5. That's a big pro for me. If you have doubts about it's effectiveness, turn it off from the menu and go out shooting at night. Count how many keepers you got. Marvel at a world of CaNikon with cheap lenses without IS, then turn SR again on your K-x and enjoy.

09-20-2010, 10:29 PM	#9
JoepLX3 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 518	How much can K-7 and K-5 correct more than K-x and K-r? - FYI: K-x and K-r only shift in two directions, K-7 and K-5 will also rotate the sensor Guess this is close to same as another thread I started (probably one can be closed)... https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/115196-shake-reduc...n-k-7-k-r.html

09-20-2010, 10:31 PM	#10
JoepLX3 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 518	And how about impact on Video? - Is it OK to do in-body stabilization during recording video?

09-20-2010, 10:48 PM	#11
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,991	Originally posted by JoepLX3 And how about impact on Video? - Is it OK to do in-body stabilization during recording video? It's a bit noisy unless you are using an external microphone.

09-21-2010, 02:24 AM	#12
simico Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Budapest Posts: 821	Originally posted by lurchlarson The two systems are essentially the same in effectiveness. Lens Based Cons The lens is a lot heavier The lens is a lot more expensive. It's not necessarily any better. Try any new Sigma lens with OS and your opinion will change. For example 17-70 f/2.8-4 HSM OS lens is cheaper than DA 17-70 SDM, not really heavier and it's OS is clearly better than in-body SR. All owners of OS lenses I know personally turned off SR on their K-7 / K-x and use the superior OS of the lens.

09-21-2010, 02:48 AM	#13
aleonx3 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Brampton, Ontario Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,996	Originally posted by lurchlarson The two systems are essentially the same in effectiveness. Lens Based Pros: The stabilization is fit exactly to the lens You can see the stabilization in effect through the viewfinder Cons The lens is a lot heavier The lens is a lot more expensive. It's not necessarily any better. Sensor based Pros Works with all lenses Just as effective as lens based stabilization Cons Can't see the effect through the viewfinder. I am a big fan of body-based stabilization. Originally posted by Peter Zack Shooting both Nikon and Pentax, I'd agree with all of this. One thing I wonder about is long-term durability. We usually buy lenses thinking they will last 20+ years and bodies maybe 5 years or less. So with the added mechanism and floating element, will these lenses last as long as a lens that has less moving parts (where all the lens elements are fixed in the barrel). Also don't forget that there are very few if any stabilized lenses under 100mm. With Pentax, you have everything stabalized. While I agree with your assessment and validation, 99% of the time when you go to the camera shop and ask the sales person's suggestion on which camera to pick, the words usually go around like this: "in-lens based stabilization" is more effective and you are better off getting those than the other kind. That's why I never buy camera stuff from the local shop.

09-21-2010, 04:17 AM	#14
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,892	Biggest Pro for in camera SR I don't have to replace any of my 30+ lenses to use it At the end of the day that is a big issue As for perhaps gaining a stop in speed that is much more technique than technology. I had previously posted a 100% crop of a heron shot using an SMC300F4 with 1.7X AFTC (510 mm equivalent ) or considering the crop factor for ASP-C 750mm on full frame at 1/40. That is more than 4 stops with pentax's SR. I don't believe anyone with a 500mm lens is willing to post hand held at 1/20.

09-21-2010, 05:19 AM	#15
joele Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,308	Originally posted by simico Try any new Sigma lens with OS and your opinion will change. For example 17-70 f/2.8-4 HSM OS lens is cheaper than DA 17-70 SDM, not really heavier and it's OS is clearly better than in-body SR. All owners of OS lenses I know personally turned off SR on their K-7 / K-x and use the superior OS of the lens. Yeah it does depend on the lens, the nikon lenses I used with vr I couldn't see much advantage over Pentax SR (but they were 100mm or shorter).. But the Canon 70-200/4 IS has fantastic stabilization, much better than SR for sure.. The 300/f4 IS also beats my old F*300 using SR, but it isn't as good as the 70-200 IMO.. Its all about consistancy...