Advantage of Visible Stabilisation?

In the Canon 400D White Paper
(http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ite-Paper.pdf),
while discussing the advantages of lens-based stabilisation, they state:

"Less significant but still worth mentioning is the fact that in-body
stabilization is not visible through the finder, whereas Canon lens-based
stabilzation definitely is."

How do you find that to be an advantage?

On Dec 19, 9:13 pm, "Wilba" wrote:
In the Canon 400D White Paper
(http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ebel-XTi-W...),
while discussing the advantages of lens-based stabilisation, they state:

"Less significant but still worth mentioning is the fact that in-body
stabilization is not visible through the finder, whereas Canon lens-based
stabilzation definitely is."

How do you find that to be an advantage?

How do you find it not to be? :-)

Ever shot with a 400mm lens hand held? At 400 IS makes a world of
difference, at 20mm not so much.

In all honest try it out at the local shop, even the 300mm IS's, and
tell me you would rather shoot hand held with out.

On Dec 19, 9:13 pm, "Wilba" wrote:
In the Canon 400D White Paper
(http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ebel-XTi-W...),
while discussing the advantages of lens-based stabilisation, they state:

"Less significant but still worth mentioning is the fact that in-body
stabilization is not visible through the finder, whereas Canon lens-based
stabilzation definitely is."

How do you find that to be an advantage?

If you want to use your camera and a telephoto lens as a telescope
(not a great idea) it might have some value.

RichA wrote:
On Dec 19, 9:13 pm, "Wilba" wrote:
In the Canon 400D White Paper
(http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ebel-XTi-W...),
while discussing the advantages of lens-based stabilisation, they state:

"Less significant but still worth mentioning is the fact that in-body
stabilization is not visible through the finder, whereas Canon lens-based
stabilzation definitely is."

How do you find that to be an advantage?

If you want to use your camera and a telephoto lens as a telescope
(not a great idea) it might have some value.

Think of looking through binoculars for comparison if you've ever done that.

Wilba wrote:
In the Canon 400D White Paper
(http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ite-Paper.pdf),
while discussing the advantages of lens-based stabilisation, they
state:
"Less significant but still worth mentioning is the fact that in-body
stabilization is not visible through the finder, whereas Canon
lens-based stabilzation definitely is."

How do you find that to be an advantage?

Simply stated:

- with in-lens IS, as soon as you switch on the IS the image becomes
stable in the viewfinder, making it much easier for you to compose the
image, and easier for the camera to focus on the image and perform its
metering etc.

- with in body IS all you and the camera have to look at is an image which
is increasingly shaky as the focal length increases. Composition etc.
becomes more difficult.

It's a significant practical advantage of in-lens IS, and another reason I
would avoid in-body IS other things being equal.

Cheers,
David

"David J Taylor"
wrote in message .uk...
Wilba wrote:
In the Canon 400D White Paper
(http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ite-Paper.pdf),
while discussing the advantages of lens-based stabilisation, they
state:
"Less significant but still worth mentioning is the fact that in-body
stabilization is not visible through the finder, whereas Canon
lens-based stabilzation definitely is."

How do you find that to be an advantage?

Simply stated:

- with in-lens IS, as soon as you switch on the IS the image becomes
stable in the viewfinder, making it much easier for you to compose the
image, and easier for the camera to focus on the image and perform its
metering etc.

- with in body IS all you and the camera have to look at is an image which
is increasingly shaky as the focal length increases. Composition etc.
becomes more difficult.

It's a significant practical advantage of in-lens IS, and another reason I
would avoid in-body IS other things being equal.

Cheers,
David
Below 200mm the effect is not as great of course. In camera is of course
great value for those that do not use longer lenses, for those that do there
is always the tripod of course.

Pete D wrote:
[]
Below 200mm the effect is not as great of course. In camera is of
course great value for those that do not use longer lenses, for those
that do there is always the tripod of course.

The benefit depends on the circumstances. On a quiet, windless day, on
the ground, may well be a completely different situation to a windy day on
an exposed rock, or when taking pictures from a boat. Try using a tripod
from an aircraft or car.

In camera is lower-cost if you have existing lenses, but it is a
compromise from the performance, reliability and usability viewpoints.

Cheers,
David

David J Taylor wrote:
Wilba wrote:
In the Canon 400D White Paper
(http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ite-Paper.pdf),
while discussing the advantages of lens-based stabilisation, they
state:
"Less significant but still worth mentioning is the fact that in-body
stabilization is not visible through the finder, whereas Canon
lens-based stabilzation definitely is."

How do you find that to be an advantage?

Simply stated:

- with in-lens IS, as soon as you switch on the IS the image becomes
stable in the viewfinder, making it much easier for you to compose the
image, and easier for the camera to focus on the image and perform its
metering etc.

- with in body IS all you and the camera have to look at is an image which
is increasingly shaky as the focal length increases. Composition etc.
becomes more difficult.

It's a significant practical advantage of in-lens IS, and another reason I
would avoid in-body IS other things being equal.

Surely this only applies to using an optical viewfinder which operates
through the lens as in a DSLR? If using an EVF or LCD live view screen
would not the in-body stabilisation make the viewed image perfectly
stable?

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Chris Malcolm wrote:
[]
Surely this only applies to using an optical viewfinder which operates
through the lens as in a DSLR? If using an EVF or LCD live view screen
would not the in-body stabilisation make the viewed image perfectly
stable?

Chris,

"Perfectly stable" - who knows? But better than without the IS,
certainly, although not as dramatic an improvement as the resolution of
those finders is currently a lot less. Since this was posted in a DSLR
group, and the OP referred to a Canon 400D, my answer was in that context.
Although viewing can be stabilised when an EVF or LCD is used, having the
image stabilised on the focus and other sensors is an important advantage
of in-lens IS.

I must admit that I would like to see independent comparative tests of the
stabilisation capabilities of in-lens and in-body IS.

Cheers,
David

JimKramer wrote:
Wilba wrote:

In the Canon 400D White Paper
(http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ebel-XTi-W...),
while discussing the advantages of lens-based stabilisation, they state:

"Less significant but still worth mentioning is the fact that in-body
stabilization is not visible through the finder, whereas Canon lens-based
stabilzation definitely is."

How do you find that to be an advantage?

How do you find it not to be? :-)

I've seen it on a kit 18-55, and I saw it making the view unnaturally jerky,
compared to smooth and stable without it.

Ever shot with a 400mm lens hand held?

I had a 500 (or was it 600?) mm cat many years ago, and yes, I think I did
get some shots hand held. :-)

At 400 IS makes a world of difference, at 20mm not so much.

A world of difference to what? I know IS is A Good Thing (for the sharpness
of the image, slower shutter speeds, etc.), but as you look through the
viewfinder, how does seeing a stabilised image help you to get the shot?

In all honest try it out at the local shop, even the 300mm IS's,
and tell me you would rather shoot hand held with out.

Unfortunately, I'd have to go 400km to get to a shop that would have
something like that in stock. That's why I'm asking here. :-D