Which Is Better"In Body" or "Optical" Stabilization? , Sony A7 vs A7ii

Sliver-Surfer · 06-08-2018, 07:51 AM - **1 Like**

"In Body" or "Optical" Stabilization Which is Better?, Sony A7 and A7iiI use a Tamron Adaptall II 35-80mm and a Sony 28-70m to test if IBIS or OSS are better than the other.

Youtu.be

**ChipB** · 06-08-2018, 08:33 AM

I've had several Pentax DSLRs - last one a K-3 - and am now shooting with a Canon 80D. The only real difference I've noticed between the two types of image stabilization is it's easier (to me) to tell if the IS is working is with the Pentax - you see the icon in the viewfinder. With the Canon (and 3rd party lenses) it's not easy to tell if the IS is actually working. I have one lens where I can hear the IS kick in, but the others are totally silent and have no apparent indicator that the IS is working.

Other than that nit, I can't tell the difference from the results.

GeneV · 06-08-2018, 12:03 PM

It depends on what you need. Most of the time, in body works fine for me, and it allows lenses to be smaller and lighter. It is one of the things I liked about Pentax. A DA*300 on a K3 is about the same size and weight as a high quality micro 4/3 lens of the same length and speed with in lens stabilization.

A big advantage to putting the stabilization in the lens is that you see the effect through the viewfinder. It is also said to be more effective at longer focal lengths.

The best of all worlds may be what Sony and Panasonic now do: allow you to use both, either separately or together.

reh321 · 06-08-2018, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by GeneV

It depends on what you need. Most of the time, in body works fine for me, and it allows lenses to be smaller and lighter. It is one of the things I liked about Pentax. A DA*300 on a K3 is about the same size and weight as a high quality micro 4/3 lens of the same length and speed with in lens stabilization.

A big advantage to putting the stabilization in the lens is that you see the effect through the viewfinder. It is also said to be more effective at longer focal lengths.

The best of all worlds may be what Sony and Panasonic now do: allow you to use both, either separately or together.

Another advantage of InBody Image Stabilization is that all lenses are stabilized. When I left Canon three years ago, I unloaded all my lenses, many only a few years old, because none of them is stabilized; if I were ever to use Canon equipment again, I would want to start fresh .... everything stabilized. However, all my Pentax lenses are stabilized, even any that date before my birth {I'm 70 years old}.

Sliver-Surfer · 06-08-2018, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by reh321

Another advantage of InBody Image Stabilization is that all lenses are stabilized. When I left Canon three years ago, I unloaded all my lenses, many only a few years old, because none of them is stabilized; if I were ever to use Canon equipment again, I would want to start fresh .... everything stabilized. However, all my Pentax lenses are stabilized, even any that date before my birth {I'm 70 years old}.

Yeah I can't wait to use my A-mount lenses. For years I have left them on my shelf for low light gigs because of the 1/3 step loss from the translucent mirror in the La ea4 but if I can shoot my 180mm Sigma macro at 1/90s it's a game changer.

**Scorpio71GR** · 06-08-2018, 06:33 PM

I have had several Sigma lenses with OS, including my 50-500. Overall I never really noticed any difference between the two. The problem with using OS lenses on Pentax cameras is you need to turn SR off. Then of course when you mount a non OS lens you have to remember to turn SR back on. I have fallen victim to this many times. Eventually I just stuck with SR full time. The biggest advantage I found with OS lenses was with birds in flight. Having the viewfinder stabilized made it easier for me to track them. I would also use it while having the camera on a monopod. However having the viewfinder jump when the OS kicks in can be a bit distracting. Personally I just favor In Body Stabilization. As stated it keeps the lenses smaller and lighter.

abruzzi · 06-14-2018, 05:57 PM

In lens stabilization makes me a little seasick. Granted I’ve only experienced it on a Nikon AW1, so I’m not looking through an optical viewfinder, but watching the rear LCD when using a stabilized lens is slightly unpleasant.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-1 stabilization vs Olympus e-m1 mark 1 stabilization: is Oly really that good?	Hattifnatt	Pentax K-1 & K-1 II	66	05-22-2018 12:28 AM
Optical IS (in lens) vs optical SR (body sensor shift) vs DS (pixel tracking)	rburgoss	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	10	10-20-2014 07:07 PM
DSLRmagazine: Sony A7r vs Nikon D800 and A7 vs Leica M test. Sony is the best!	Clavius	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	3	01-14-2014 10:25 AM
Sony and Pentax to get optical stabilization, courtesy of Sigma?	ftpaddict	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	03-09-2009 02:21 AM
In-body stabilization + lens stabilization	ntx	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	14	02-24-2009 05:24 PM

06-08-2018, 08:33 AM	#2
ChipB Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Eau Claire, WI Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,717	I've had several Pentax DSLRs - last one a K-3 - and am now shooting with a Canon 80D. The only real difference I've noticed between the two types of image stabilization is it's easier (to me) to tell if the IS is working is with the Pentax - you see the icon in the viewfinder. With the Canon (and 3rd party lenses) it's not easy to tell if the IS is actually working. I have one lens where I can hear the IS kick in, but the others are totally silent and have no apparent indicator that the IS is working. Other than that nit, I can't tell the difference from the results.

06-08-2018, 12:03 PM	#3
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	It depends on what you need. Most of the time, in body works fine for me, and it allows lenses to be smaller and lighter. It is one of the things I liked about Pentax. A DA*300 on a K3 is about the same size and weight as a high quality micro 4/3 lens of the same length and speed with in lens stabilization. A big advantage to putting the stabilization in the lens is that you see the effect through the viewfinder. It is also said to be more effective at longer focal lengths. The best of all worlds may be what Sony and Panasonic now do: allow you to use both, either separately or together.

06-08-2018, 01:08 PM	#4
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,185	Originally posted by GeneV It depends on what you need. Most of the time, in body works fine for me, and it allows lenses to be smaller and lighter. It is one of the things I liked about Pentax. A DA*300 on a K3 is about the same size and weight as a high quality micro 4/3 lens of the same length and speed with in lens stabilization. A big advantage to putting the stabilization in the lens is that you see the effect through the viewfinder. It is also said to be more effective at longer focal lengths. The best of all worlds may be what Sony and Panasonic now do: allow you to use both, either separately or together. Another advantage of InBody Image Stabilization is that all lenses are stabilized. When I left Canon three years ago, I unloaded all my lenses, many only a few years old, because none of them is stabilized; if I were ever to use Canon equipment again, I would want to start fresh .... everything stabilized. However, all my Pentax lenses are stabilized, even any that date before my birth {I'm 70 years old}.

06-08-2018, 01:42 PM	#5
Sliver-Surfer Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,558 Original Poster	Originally posted by reh321 Another advantage of InBody Image Stabilization is that all lenses are stabilized. When I left Canon three years ago, I unloaded all my lenses, many only a few years old, because none of them is stabilized; if I were ever to use Canon equipment again, I would want to start fresh .... everything stabilized. However, all my Pentax lenses are stabilized, even any that date before my birth {I'm 70 years old}. Yeah I can't wait to use my A-mount lenses. For years I have left them on my shelf for low light gigs because of the 1/3 step loss from the translucent mirror in the La ea4 but if I can shoot my 180mm Sigma macro at 1/90s it's a game changer.

06-08-2018, 06:33 PM	#6
Scorpio71GR Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,023	I have had several Sigma lenses with OS, including my 50-500. Overall I never really noticed any difference between the two. The problem with using OS lenses on Pentax cameras is you need to turn SR off. Then of course when you mount a non OS lens you have to remember to turn SR back on. I have fallen victim to this many times. Eventually I just stuck with SR full time. The biggest advantage I found with OS lenses was with birds in flight. Having the viewfinder stabilized made it easier for me to track them. I would also use it while having the camera on a monopod. However having the viewfinder jump when the OS kicks in can be a bit distracting. Personally I just favor In Body Stabilization. As stated it keeps the lenses smaller and lighter.

06-14-2018, 05:57 PM	#7
abruzzi Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2017 Location: New Mexico Posts: 788	In lens stabilization makes me a little seasick. Granted I’ve only experienced it on a Nikon AW1, so I’m not looking through an optical viewfinder, but watching the rear LCD when using a stabilized lens is slightly unpleasant.