[Jodokast96]

....if your camera breaks, you don't have to worry about buying another one with the Shake Reduction built in.

And that's an issue why? What maker that uses in-body has released a body without it? The last one I can think of was the K110D about 5 years ago.

The lenses do cost a little bit more usually, but they do have a ton of advantages that make buying them much better for both the manufacturers and the people buying them.

A little bit more? It adds hundreds to thousands of dollars to the cost of the lens. A possible extra stop and being able to see the stabilizing effect is not a ton of advantages.

[Marc Sabatella]

Lens based shake reduction is a little more effective generally and has a little less chance of having problems, for the most part.

You evidence for the latter claim?

Also, if your camera breaks, you don't have to worry about buying another one with the Shake Reduction built in.

Not sure what this means. As another poster observed, it's not like wanting SR limits your choices - *all* Pentax bodies produced in the last four years have had SR.

The lenses do cost a little bit more usually, but they do have a ton of advantages that make buying them much better for both the manufacturers and the people buying them.

And a ton of *disadvantages* that make buying them much worse. it's a tradeoff like any other, but for most people, the advantages of body SR *far*outweigh the advantages of lens. Not even close, really. Only people who primarily shoot long telephoto, or who only plan on using the kit zooms for the rest of their lives, are better served by lens stabilization in general.

[creampuff]

You evidence for the latter claim?



Not sure what this means. As another poster observed, it's not like wanting SR limits your choices - *all* Pentax bodies produced in the last four years have had SR.



And a ton of *disadvantages* that make buying them much worse. it's a tradeoff like any other, but for most people, the advantages of body SR *far*outweigh the advantages of lens. Not even close, really. Only people who primarily shoot long telephoto, or who only plan on using the kit zooms for the rest of their lives, are better served by lens stabilization in general.

+1 on what Marc said.

jct us101, when you proclaim that lens based shake reduction has a little less chance of having problems, please spare a thought for the many Nikon 18-200mm VR owners who have experienced an abnormally high rate of failure with this lens. Unfortunately since you don't even appear to have on hand any Pentax camera with SR, your claims of the purported weaknesses of in-body stabilization is questionable to say the least.

[Rondec]

I think that other threads have documented the effectiveness. According to labnut's data, it seems that at fast shutter speeds (faster than 1/100 second) it isn't very effective. At the same time, I seldom use it with shutter speeds that fast -- I am usually shooting in the 1/10 - 1/50 second range, where it works excellently.

The two specific benefits of lens SR are: (1) stabilized viewfinder and (2) works better on long lenses (longer than 200 mm). On the other hand, it does add significant expense. Nikon currently sells a non-IS 80-200 f2.8 lens for 1100 dollars. The 70-200 VR II costs 2200 dollars (both Amazon prices). That's not pocket change. Sure there are some cheap consumer lenses out there with VR, but there are some awfully expensive ones as well.

One clear place where in body SR is better is with video. Something about having the sensor stabilized gives a more pleasing effect in video than having a lens stabilized. Not certain why, but it is pretty clear.

One final point is that when you get a new camera body, your SR is updated on all of your lenses. There is a significant improvement in SR from the K10 to the K7. I expect it to continue to improve over time. Maybe at some point it will be better than in lens SR (it should get there -- you can correct more movements with it).

[jct us101]

+1 on what Marc said.

jct us101, when you proclaim that lens based shake reduction has a little less chance of having problems, please spare a thought for the many Nikon 18-200mm VR owners who have experienced an abnormally high rate of failure with this lens. Unfortunately since you don't even appear to have on hand any Pentax camera with SR, your claims of the purported weaknesses of in-body stabilization is questionable to say the least.

I've owned two cameras with SR in them, actually. I've also owned quite a few lenses with IS built into them. So please don't try to discredit me, because I know what I'm talking about.

When the mechanism is built into your camera, then if something goes wrong with it, you have to buy a new camera or not have SR (NOT THAT I SAID THIS HAS EVER HAPPENED, KEY WORD HERE IS IF), but if it's built into a lens then you just replace the lens. I suppose my first post didn't make as much sense how I made it, but maybe if I use a human analogy it might help (or just make it worse).

If you have a bad leg, then it has to be amptuated, and you just have to live with that leg, but if you have a bad kidney, it can be taken out, and you'll still have another one to keep you alive and fine, without much visible difference. I guess it could be compared to lens based SR versus camera based SR in that way, although I'm just not sure what I'm even talking about anymore.

You know what, never mind.

[Eruditass]

You'd rather replace a lens than a body???

Bodies get updated fairly often and there are always little insentives to upgrade, while lenses get updated much less. Old lenses still shine, old bodies not so much.

[rparmar]

When the mechanism is built into your camera, then if something goes wrong with it, you have to buy a new camera or not have SR (NOT THAT I SAID THIS HAS EVER HAPPENED, KEY WORD HERE IS IF), but if it's built into a lens then you just replace the lens.

Hypotheticals are one thing, but how about some facts. The only way this argument even begins to make sense is if you convince me that SR ever breaks. It doesn't. Whereas there are many documented cases of in-lens stabilisation breaking. Furthermore, since some of those lenses cost more than a body, the situation is even worse. Add to this the fact that bodies depreciate far quicker than lenses and you are left with the following:

CHOICE A: Buy a body with SR that will work until you replace the body. Pay once for the privilege. (Though, in fact, you pay less with Pentax.)

CHOICE B: Buy a body without SR and then pay extra for IS in every lens you purchase (if you can...many primes have no IS equivalent). Then, chance the fact that the IS won't break in 10, 20 or 30 years.

Hmmm... what would I do?

[RioRico]

There are arguments here for argumentation's sake (and to pad the point count). The data Falk has presented are pretty clear. In-body SR is effective over certain critical ranges, and mostly doesn't hurt elsewhere.

In-lens IS is old technology, lucrative in certain markets, obsoleted elsewhere. As I've mentioned around here, there are many ways to stabilize images, and more ways will be devised; and IS (and USM / SDM and other breakable in-lens mechanical technology) will go the way of the Yugo and Corvair. It's fun while it lasts. Being a dinosaur is grand until the wily little mammals eat your eggs.

"There's more than one way to skin a cat", she mused,
as she pinned its little feet to the dissecting table.

[JeffJS]

Why do other vendors produce expensive lenses with shake reduction systems instead of designing camera bodies with shake reduction systems. Isn't the Pentax method of in body shake reduction superior?

Without having read the responses, I'm going to set myself up here. Pentax SR is nice to have but it isn't the best out there. I don't know technically what type it was but the SR in my Panasonic FZ20 was worlds better than in the Pentax DSLRs. Granted, you cannot change lenses on that camera but I could still take a clean 420mm (35mm equiv) shot with the Panasonic. I could take a clean 1 second exposure with that camera. There is a lot more going on in the Pentax body than with that camera but the results spoke for themselves, to me.

I'm not saying the Pentax SR doesn't work but it's not the best out there. What it does have going for it is that it doesn't matter What lens you put on the camera, you don't have to pay extra for the in lens shake reduction.. The down side of that, is if you get use to the shake reduction and pick up a Pentax Film camera (as I have), you no longer have the shake reduction. Good, Bad? You decide. For me, it's just something I have to remember and wouldn't push me towards the more expensive lenses of the other brands.

[Marc Sabatella]

When the mechanism is built into your camera, then if something goes wrong with it, you have to buy a new camera or not have SR (NOT THAT I SAID THIS HAS EVER HAPPENED, KEY WORD HERE IS IF)

Right, and since there is basically no documented evidence of this being an issue, what's the *relevance* of this as a factor in making a decision?

Also, since most stabilized lenses worth having (eg, aside from the cheap consumer zooms) cost *more* than a new camera body, your argument actually ends up being an argument in favor of body stabilization. Also considering the fact that most people end up upgrading bodies anyhow every few years, it's really a very *large* win in favor of body stabilization, if one believes one should consider the practically infinitessimal chance that it would ever be an issue.

[jct us101]

Right, and since there is basically no documented evidence of this being an issue, what's the *relevance* of this as a factor in making a decision?

Also, since most stabilized lenses worth having (eg, aside from the cheap consumer zooms) cost *more* than a new camera body, your argument actually ends up being an argument in favor of body stabilization. Also considering the fact that most people end up upgrading bodies anyhow every few years, it's really a very *large* win in favor of body stabilization, if one believes one should consider the practically infinitessimal chance that it would ever be an issue.

I realized that about halfway through my post, hence why I totally gave up on the idea. Since I can't delete posts though and I was in a rush I just left it. When I came back later though I couldn't find this thread again.

[robgo2]

Lens based shake reduction is a little more effective generally and has a little less chance of having problems, for the most part. Also, if your camera breaks, you don't have to worry about buying another one with the Shake Reduction built in. The lenses do cost a little bit more usually, but they do have a ton of advantages that make buying them much better for both the manufacturers and the people buying them.

I don't understand this logic. Most serious shooters, which includes almost everyone on this forum, replace their cameras every 2-3 years, I would guess. This means that they get the latest SR technology with each new camera having in-body SR. Lenses, OTOH, people tend to keep much longer, meaning they are using outdated in-lens SR. And, in least in the case of Pentax, their bodies are less expensive than comparable bodies from Nikon and Canon. It's almost as though they give you SR for free.

Rob