[Marv Toler]

SR and high ISO are usually used to the same effect - namely to take a quality photo in low light. However, there are differences in artistic use. For instance, I have pictures of my dog taken at low shutter speeds where his face and eyes are sharp and clear. However, his tail has a little blur because it is moving. There are probably other instances like this where Shake Reduction is not the same as high ISO.

[Timichango]

WMBP said: "if I am shooting in bright light, already at ISO 100, and I want to open the aperture up wider to narrow depth of field even further, I just use a faster shutter."

Yep, you can use a faster shutter to control light if you want to open up the aperture, but what if you want to deliberately use a slow shutter and a fast aperture?

There are endless creative reasons that you'd want a slower shutter: to capture and convey motion, to blur the flow of water, etcetera, and if you want to combine this with a fast aperture to also control the DOF, then having a sensor that starts at 800iso—fully 3 stops faster than 100iso—is going to require a stack of strong neutral-density filters over the lens to decrease the amount of light hitting the sensor, and these are expensive, and still reduce the ultimate image quality.

I've met more than a few people that already need to use ND filters to allow them to accomplish beautiful daytime long-exposure landscape photographs, and this is at 100iso; pushing the base ISO faster is a very undesirable detriment to control. And control over the final image is ultimately what we're after, isn't it?

[flippedgazelle]

Yes, this is, as I suggested earlier, the position of Canon and Nikon. I suspect their IS/VR lenses are sold mainly to pros and serious enthusiasts.

Actually, much of Canikon's "pro-grade" glass lacks IS/VR.

Both bundle IS/VR kit lenses even with low-end bodies.

[falconeye]

Will the IS mechanisms become unnecessary potential points of failure in future cameras.

IMHO, the opposite will happen.

1. Low light (ISO) capabilities. These are limited by laws of physics and progress is limited to maybe 3 more stops (for a given lens size) before hard boundaries are hit.

2. The 1/(focal length rule)-sec applies to 30µm blur widths, much like the DoF scale does. If one wants to shoot for sharp 5µm pixels (as with K-7) or even less in future cameras, even a fast FA31 requires 1/180s or less w/o any kind of IS. Many subjects are static enough to allow for slower shutter speeds. So, leaving out IS means not using what is feasible where the other parameter (ISO) is hitting boundaries.

3. The IS mechanism (as of now) yielding 3 stops is just enough to keep the 1/f rule applicable for pixel peepers (1/30s with FA31). Future cameras will need even better IS. Which is quite feasible, actually.

[phzy2003]

SR is very useful in low light, but i don't use it much

[jct us101]

I don't think so. SR is like that little helper that boosts you over the fence when you need it, whether or not you have a high enough ISO ability to be able to not need it. Besides, wouldn't you rather use a lower ISO and then SR instead of having to deal with the noise, whether or not it's a little bit better?

[macTak]

I always seem to need more light, so I'll take whatever I can get (I do love SR, although it takes a little while to get a sense of new safe speeds). Also, high ISO's are always going to be worse the low ISO's, provided the sensor is set up for IQ at the low ISO's (which I still need), so SR helps you use your camera at a the best ISO (and there is more flexibility in PP then, if needed).

[theperception2008]

SR is very useful in low light, but i don't use it much

Well this is pretty much the thought that my GF told me when I was helping her to purchase a DSLR. She ended up buying a Nikon D3000 instead of the K-x. For her she takes photos on occasion and from looking at her results they are pretty good. She only has the standard kit lens and it's the non VR version too, as it was cheaper then the VR kit.

I have to echo the sentiment that many casual users will not go beyond the kit lens and will not try to shoot pictures in low light situations, and if they do they will just go with the pop-up flash to get the results they want. That is definitely the case with my gf.

On the other hand, I run a K100D Super and I am always trying to push my limits in photography. With the K100D Super being slower than my first DSLR (Gx-20) it forces me to be more deliberate with my shots. As such, SR has gotten me quite a few more keepers than if I did not have it. One of the reasons that I have gone with Pentax is because of the in body SR.

Pentax did release a few DSLR's without SR, the *Ist DS/DL cameras and the K110D.

I really think that SR is something that I would rather pay for and have on hand than HD video, which I can not see my self using all too often. Not nearly as much as SR for certain!

Also, most Canon and Nikon top end models have built in stabilization as opposed to their lower end models( please correct me if I am wrong on this).

That's just my two cents.

[Daedbird]

I think image stabilization is needed in APS sensors, but when there is a full frame model, no, its not needed

[WMBP]

I said, "Yes, this is, as I suggested earlier, the position of Canon and Nikon. I suspect their IS/VR lenses are sold mainly to pros and serious enthusiasts." And flippedgazelle replied,

Actually, much of Canikon's "pro-grade" glass lacks IS/VR.

Both bundle IS/VR kit lenses even with low-end bodies.

Think we're talking past one another. I'm not saying that all pro quality lenses have VR. I simply suggested that most of the IS/VR lenses that are sold (i.e. rather than included as part of the initial package) are sold to pros and serious enthusiasts. Do you think I'm wrong about this? I really don't know, I'm just guessing. Haven't seen any stats and in addition I don't really know Nikon's lens line-up very well. But of the Nikon users I know, the only ones that have VR lenses other than the kit lens, are the pros.

I think it's a pretty recent development with Nikon, anyway, that the kit lens on the low-end camera comes with a VR lens. I'm not sure what to make of this development. Could it mainly be a marketing ploy, to counter the presence of in-body image stabilization in most of the cameras NOT made by Canon or Nikon? The D60 comes with an 18-55 VR lens (on Amazon right now). As I said earlier, I'm not really sure that image stabilization is terribly useful at these focal lengths, at least for the normal amateur photographer. The D90 comes with an 18-105 VR lens, and that makes more sense for a couple of reasons: the folks who buy a D90 are somewhat more serious photographers (I know a number of wedding pros using D90s), perhaps more likely to shoot in low light, and VR in any case makes more sense at 105mm than it does at 18mm.

*

There's an interesting market problem here, and I don't know how it will be resolved.

Nikon and Canon claim that in-lens image stabilization is superior. There seems to be something to these claims, but it also seems like a very minor advantage. And the disadvantage of having to buy IS over and over again in each lens, is a very clear disadvantage. Both Nikon and Canon have in-body IS in their compact cameras. Obviously, with a fixed-lens camera, the distinction between in-lens and in-body IS disappears. But the fact that their compact cameras have IS, shows that they too acknowledge that image stabilization is valuable.

But Nikon and Canon (and their customers) have so much invested in separate VR lenses, I really can't see them releasing a camera that has image stabilization in the body. Maybe they'll surprise me.

Will

[yeatzee]

Of course Canikon wont add it to their bodies! They make way more money adding it to individual lenses....

Anyways, especially with the advent of HD video capable DSLR's, SR isn't going anywhere period. Me and a friend did a quick swap of DSLR's with their respective telephoto zooms to get a feel of eachother's system. I struggled, even with the great ISO performance of the D90, to get decent shots indoors with his non VR 70-300mm @ 300mm. I couldn't get enough light while keeping the noise level low enough to preserve the image. He on the other hand, with my K200d and DA 55-300mm, was taking perfectly acceptable images at 1/10 and between ISO 200 and ISO 400.

After that I got a "your lucky to have Image stabilization...." rant

[WMBP]

Of course Canikon wont add it to their bodies! They make way more money adding it to individual lenses....

Yeah, I hear this. I'm not so sure. They're only selling those VR/IS lenses to folks who have already purchased a Nikon or Canon camera. I'm aware that that is a LOT of people (two thirds of the total market, something like that?) but as I said already, most of that large number are NOT buying VR lenses.

And meanwhile, Sony, Olympus, Fuji, Pentax are making inroads and getting good reviews. I'm not whether all of those challengers put IS into their bodies, but some of them do and it gets mentioned in those glowing reviews that I read over at dpreview.com and in the trade mags. I think it's a very solid advantage to have image stabilization all the time, instead of having to think to yourself while you're peering through the finder at your shutter speed setting, "Is this a VR lens or not?" And it's obviously an economic advantage not to have to keep paying for a feature every time you buy a new lens.

I think Canon and Nikon are basically stuck. At least some of their management might LIKE to release a DSLR with in-body stabilization. But if they did so, it would basically admit defeat on the issue. So I think they're going to keep doing what they've been doing until the challengers take a big enough bite out of the market pie to start hurting them. Then they'll release something "revolutionary"—a new line of cameras with in-body stabilization. I'm not a prophet, but I think this HAS to happen eventually. The current economic downturn around the world makes those cameras with in-body IS more attractive.

Will

[Marc Sabatella]

I think image stabilization is needed in APS sensors, but when there is a full frame model, no, its not needed

Doesn't really matter how big your sensor is - there will still be some cases where you will wish for a steadier shot at the faster shutter speed you wish to use. There issue might be only half as bad on a camera that's a stop better at high ISO, but that's nowhere near the same as saying it's not needed.

[flippedgazelle]

Think we're talking past one another. I'm not saying that all pro quality lenses have VR. I simply suggested that most of the IS/VR lenses that are sold (i.e. rather than included as part of the initial package) are sold to pros and serious enthusiasts. Do you think I'm wrong about this? I really don't know, I'm just guessing. Haven't seen any stats and in addition I don't really know Nikon's lens line-up very well. But of the Nikon users I know, the only ones that have VR lenses other than the kit lens, are the pros.

I think it's a pretty recent development with Nikon, anyway, that the kit lens on the low-end camera comes with a VR lens. I'm not sure what to make of this development. Could it mainly be a marketing ploy, to counter the presence of in-body image stabilization in most of the cameras NOT made by Canon or Nikon? The D60 comes with an 18-55 VR lens (on Amazon right now). As I said earlier, I'm not really sure that image stabilization is terribly useful at these focal lengths, at least for the normal amateur photographer. The D90 comes with an 18-105 VR lens, and that makes more sense for a couple of reasons: the folks who buy a D90 are somewhat more serious photographers (I know a number of wedding pros using D90s), perhaps more likely to shoot in low light, and VR in any case makes more sense at 105mm than it does at 18mm.

*

There's an interesting market problem here, and I don't know how it will be resolved.

Nikon and Canon claim that in-lens image stabilization is superior. There seems to be something to these claims, but it also seems like a very minor advantage. And the disadvantage of having to buy IS over and over again in each lens, is a very clear disadvantage. Both Nikon and Canon have in-body IS in their compact cameras. Obviously, with a fixed-lens camera, the distinction between in-lens and in-body IS disappears. But the fact that their compact cameras have IS, shows that they too acknowledge that image stabilization is valuable.

But Nikon and Canon (and their customers) have so much invested in separate VR lenses, I really can't see them releasing a camera that has image stabilization in the body. Maybe they'll surprise me.

Will

I don't know the marketshare of lenses with IS vs those without, but I do know that the # of "affordable" lenses with IS is increasing. Both Sigma and Tamron have recently released IS-zooms that may be considered "amateur" lenses. Soon (now?) I think that a good portion of Canon Rebel and Nikon Dx000 users who choose to expand their lens collection with new lenses will wind up with IS-lenses.

In-body IS is a completely different animal than in-lens IS.

From a purely anecdotal standpoint, I've found lens-based IS to be noticeably superior to sensor-shift IS, when using compact P&S. This was from using a Casio and a Fuji with CCD-shift, vs 2 older Canon Powershots with OIS. The Canons performed much better in this regard, consistently delivering at least 1 stop better performance.

IMHO, though, I prefer having "less effective" IS on all lenses with Pentax than either "yes" or "no" IS on other brands.

[WMBP]

I don't know the marketshare of lenses with IS vs those without, but I do know that the # of "affordable" lenses with IS is increasing. Both Sigma and Tamron have recently released IS-zooms that may be considered "amateur" lenses. Soon (now?) I think that a good portion of Canon Rebel and Nikon Dx000 users who choose to expand their lens collection with new lenses will wind up with IS-lenses.

Interesting. Now that you mention it, the last time I seriously agonized about switching to Nikon (middle of last year, I think), I did look at the prices of some lenses and was surprised that some of the VR lenses cost less than I had expected them to. Perhaps, by selling lots of them, they've found a way to bring the costs down, which would make sense.

In-body IS is a completely different animal than in-lens IS.

From a purely anecdotal standpoint, I've found lens-based IS to be noticeably superior to sensor-shift IS, when using compact P&S. This was from using a Casio and a Fuji with CCD-shift, vs 2 older Canon Powershots with OIS. The Canons performed much better in this regard, consistently delivering at least 1 stop better performance.

IMHO, though, I prefer having "less effective" IS on all lenses with Pentax than either "yes" or "no" IS on other brands.

I guess I agree with your last sentence there, but your anecdotal comment is in line with what I've read elsewhere.

I guess the technical question would be, how good could in-body (sensor shift or whatever) image stabilization get? If there really is a technical reason why it could never be as good as in-lens IS, then perhaps it does make sense for Nikon and Canon to continue doing business as usual, and for the world to be divided into two camps, the in-body camp, and the in-the-lens camp.

But to answer the original question in the thread, I don't see image stabilization disappearing. Instead I see it becoming nearly universal.

Will