Image stabilisation in camera bodies

Okay, but why shouldn’t we have both?
In-body image stabilization that could be turned off when using IS lenses..
That’s not the rocket science, both technologies already exist..

That's what I've been waiting for as well.

Apart from that, the stabilized image in the viewfinder has already been mentioned above, as an additional advantage of in-lens IS.
Improved autofocusing is another advantage, as the AF chip gets more stable data to work with, when the lens has the IS.

But it's true that in-camera IS can be just as effective for shorter focal lengths. The problem with long telephoto stabilizing is that due to the large magnigication, the sensor in the camera literally has to move outside of the camera body to compensate for the shaking. Long-range telephoto lenses with stabilization has the stabilizer element close to the front of the lens, where the magnification isn't so large yet, hence a smaller movement will counter the vibration.

I agree that there's no reason not to have both in a camera system, letting you select between them depending on which lens you are using. It obviously makes good sense that in-lens came first, as sensor shift with film would be rather tricky... and while it's still a better approach I don't see any reason we shouldn't be able to engage an in-body stabilizer when using unstabilized lenses.

that reminds me where is american first?

Hermeto wrote in post #6031010
The big advantage of in-lens IS is that you can actually see the effects of stabilization in the viewfinder.
Not so with in-camera IS.

Why is that such a big advantage. I don't care whether I can see it or not, I just want it to work. And it works quite well.

but if you don't shoot what you see it can become a problem..

dbdors wrote in post #6032344
Why is that such a big advantage. I don't care whether I can see it or not, I just want it to work. And it works quite well.

Shooting what you actually see is the very basic idea of shooting with Single Lens Reflex cameras.
That's why they are invented..

Hermeto wrote in post #6032455
Shooting what you actually see is the very basic idea of shooting with Single Lens Reflex cameras.
That's why they are invented..

What????????

Here's the final word. In camera IS slowly looses functionality as focal length increases. By 70mm it is nearly useless compared to lens IS. In camera IS degrades the image much more than lens based IS; it may also lead to uneven vignetting. Also, in camera IS cannot be used in sensors larger than 1.5 crop. The image circle created by lenses is not large enough to support bigger sensors without major vignetting.

I'm all for lens based IS, but I just wish that more lenses had it, and that it was cheaper. Look at the 18-55IS. What can't the 16-35 and 24-70 have IS also without an increase in price?

edit: db, lens IS will let you know if something will be blurry or not. also makes it easier to focus when hand holding lenses longer than 200mm.

dbdors wrote in post #6032344
Why is that such a big advantage. I don't care whether I can see it or not, I just want it to work.

On the few times my 70-200's IS switch has been accidentally bumped into the off position, the first thing I immediately notice is that the viewfinder is jumping around on me at 200mm. This makes it much more difficult to compose and focus.

dbdors wrote in post #6032458
What??

You're saying you don't need to see the IS working. We're saying that the whole idea of a SLR is that you can see what you're about to shoot. If the viewfinder is jumping around while you're handholding the lens at a long focal length, this makes it difficult.

greg20d wrote in post #6032198
that reminds me where is american first?

Say what??

Weth wrote in post #6030349
Comparison done here:

http://www.popphoto.co​m …ecial-stop-the-shake.html

I never saw pop photo say anything detrimental about products advertised in their magazine

dbdors wrote in post #6032344
Why is that such a big advantage. I don't care whether I can see it or not, I just want it to work. And it works quite well.

If you are shooting with a long lens say 300mm or longer the image will be jumping all over ther viewfinder with in camera IS

I tried the in-body IS on Pentax cameras and found it to be next to worthless. Very little difference with it on or off.

I'd rather have the IS go out in a lens than in a body.