IS built into the body vs IS in Lens

Hi.

My brother just experienced the pain of having his baby die. It was an old Konica-Minolta body with built in IS.

He's talking about replacing it with soemthing like a 350D, bvut is really lamenting not having the IS in body.

I am wondering what the advantages and disadvantages of it are. Is it better in the lens? More effective? By how much?

Should I let him got out and get something with IS in body rather than a camera that will be compatible with my stuff?

I know nothing about the Camera/Lens IS debate, but you sure got me with that first sentence!

nuffi wrote in post #6864753
Hi.

My brother just experienced the pain of having his baby die. It was an old Konica-Minolta body with built in IS.

He's talking about replacing it with soemthing like a 350D, bvut is really lamenting not having the IS in body.

I am wondering what the advantages and disadvantages of it are. Is it better in the lens? More effective? By how much?

Should I let him got out and get something with IS in body rather than a camera that will be compatible with my stuff?

Notice that Canon is building IS into even their kit lenses lately.

I can only repeat what I have heard others say about in-lens vs in-camera IS. In-lens is "tuned" to that specific lens, and therefore it is better than in-camera which has to do a general adjustment "tuned" to all lenses.

Lenses have different lengths from small to large zooms. How can a body compensate for a short or long lens?
Personal opinion would be that in lens IS would have the advantage because the IS in built for the lens.

Benjybh wrote in post #6864770
I know nothing about the Camera/Lens IS debate, but you sure got me with that first sentence!

Me too!

Benjybh wrote in post #6864770
I know nothing about the Camera/Lens IS debate, but you sure got me with that first sentence!

Yeah, well.... Dad brought it back for him from HK maybe 7 years back. He's never had any other SLR, so he really loved it. I've (still!) only ever owned film cameras (FD ftw!!) so I couldn't really talk to him about it.

I have only really experienced in-lense IS myself but have read numerous posts over at DPReview in some of the Oly, Pentax, and Sony forums that elude to a difference in the number of stops that are gained on longer lenses with the in-body IS vs shorter lenses. Whether these individuals are the minority or not I don't know but the logic seems to be pretty sound that IS tuned to each specific lense would be more benefitial.

A very inexpensive "starter kit" would be the Rebel without the kit lens, then Canon's newer "kit" set: the 18-55 IS and the 55-250 IS. They are both inexpensive lenses but with a reasonably good rep.

As has been said, the in-body IS is fine for "normal" focal lengths, but can in no way handle telephoto lengths, so with the 2-lens kit I mention above, he will already have more IS functionality than he had before.

I would love to have in-body IS for primes. At this point in-lens IS is superior to in-body IS for teles, but there is no reason we shouldn't have in-body IS for shorter primes. I, for one, would love to see Canon offer this.

versedmb wrote in post #6864899
I would love to have in-body IS for primes. At this point in-lens IS is superior to in-body IS for teles, but there is no reason we shouldn't have in-body IS for shorter primes. I, for one, would love to see Canon offer this.

YES....YES....YES

versedmb wrote in post #6864899
I would love to have in-body IS for primes. At this point in-lens IS is superior to in-body IS for teles, but there is no reason we shouldn't have in-body IS for shorter primes. I, for one, would love to see Canon offer this.

Yes there is reasons! Its adding more stuff into the body which makes it more complex and expensive plus its a compromise again.

IS in lens all the way IMO!

Primes do need IS tho...

10-22 F2.8 IS, 17-55 F2.8 IS, 70-200 F2.8 IS, 100mm F2.8 Macro.


mmmmmmm I can dream

I shot Pentax before joining the dark side (LOL) so these are my thoughts -
In body -
-Works on ALL lenses, it's nice to have a stabilized 50mm f/1.4
-Apparently "tuned" to the focal length of the lens
-Effective up to 300mm (my longest lens, I could shoot ~1/100s), but folks have good luck with the Bigma at 500mm
-You do have to wait a second after half-pressing to "prime" the anti-shake before taking the shot (you wait for a little hand to appear in the viewfinder), must repeat for every subsequent shot (at least in Single Shot focus, never really used AF-C) whereas Canon's stays "spinning" for some time after a shot
-Don't have to pay extra for each lens to have IS

In-lens:
-obviously tuned to each individual lens
-Stabilizes the viewfinder, VERY helpful with long lenses such as the 100-400.
-Runs continously between shots
-Makes IS lenses more expensive

So IDEALLY it would be great if Canon had in-body that could work with the non-IS lenses, and still allow you to use IS lenses if you have them. I would LOVE if my 85mm f/1.8 was stabilized. It can be tough trying to get fast enough shutter speeds with that lens in low light.

nuffi wrote in post #6864753
It was an old Konica-Minolta body with built in IS.

Did he have many lenses for the Minolta? If so, then he should really be looking at the Sony line, as those are built on the Minolta platform and will use those lenses.

If not, the Canon Rebels line is quite nice. I've been pleased with my 400D. I'll leave the lens/body IS question to others more knowledgeable than I.

I say get a used 40D. I have been seeing a lot of these for really cheap lately.