A number of opinions have been voiced elsewhere about the reliability of in-body IS so I thought it would be sensible to try to get some figures together. Poll open to all users of in-body IS systems (not just Olympus)
A number of opinions have been voiced elsewhere about the reliability of in-body IS so I thought it would be sensible to try to get some figures together. Poll open to all users of in-body IS systems (not just Olympus)
The shake reduction in my Pentax K100D has been 100% reliable so far. It's quite a system - I can shoot handheld 1/6 second with a 135mm lens (200mm equivalent) and get critically sharp images. Being able to input the focal length to 'adjust' the strength of SR is quite a valuable feature.
The Anti Shake on my Minolta has been very reliable, never had any problems. If we are talking about effects on image quality, I have found that holding the lens under the front element with IS/AS/OS on works best, up to 4 stops and sometimes 5, at least for me and I get some sharp shots that way.
As for other faults, the only thing I can say with my second hand Dimage A1 is that it was very likely not used often by the previous owner and it tends to stick a bit (sensor gets off center and you can see the margins of it!), so even if I don't take it out for photos I switch it on every now and then to give it some use as it is a very old camera by today's standards. With that, it has improved a good a good bit.
Ditto with my K10D - I wouldn't buy another camera without it.The shake reduction in my Pentax K100D has been 100% reliable so far. It's quite a system - I can shoot handheld 1/6 second with a 135mm lens (200mm equivalent) and get critically sharp images. Being able to input the focal length to 'adjust' the strength of SR is quite a valuable feature.
This is something that I want.
Taking low light shots with my Canon 20D fitted with a 50mm f1.4 I'm getting a low hit rate even at 3200. The rumour sites report that both Nikon and Canon have working systems and are each waiting to see what the other does. I hope that in body IS comes on a Canon DSLR soon, it'll seriously tempt me even though it'll probably come on a body with a high mp count.
Alan's defence lawyer claimed that "Booze played no part in his typo's."
Both my daughter an I have made heavy use of our Dimage A2s in all sorts of weathers with no problems whatsoever. Similarly my a900 is utterly reliable although after seven months it is a bit early to make a firm judgement.
I wouldn't buy a camera without it.
I've had a Ricoh compact (R4) in which the IS failed twice and the camera had to be replaced. The in-body IS on my E-520 is working OK but I do think that in-lens IS is more efficient. Nevertheless, in-body IS is a wonderful thing for older manual lenses.
Nick
IMVHO,IS in the body makes perfect sense,since the in lens method of Canon and Nikon makes the lenses more expensive and very much heavier.That is why I`ve been drawn towards the KM/Sony brand.
Dave NRIPN
If it wasn't for bad luck, I wouldn't have no luck at all - Albert King
Blues is a healer - John Lee Hooker
my flickr
The E-510 had pretty good IS, I have sharp images using the 70-300mm @ 300mm with shutter of 1/6th second. I was pretty well braced bit it was still impressive.
The E-3's IS seem a lot more effective though, maybe some of it is down to the extra bulk on the body!
I love the fact that it works with all lenses and even legacy lenses.
Thanks
Nick
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
