Brad beat me to this thread...........

In camera vs. lens based...

> IS doesn't help at shutter speeds that freeze action (like for belly dance),

Note (for those who don't realize) that this is true for *all* anti-shake -- if you're shooting at stop-action speeds, your antishake is largely irrelevant, as the shutter will render the photographer's jitters dramatically less, also. There are a few exceptions -- very-long-telephoto may still benefit from antishake, as the long focal-length accentuates photographer-jitters.


> but not having the telephoto view in the viewfinder jumbling around while working a long show is really helpful.

Another note (again, for those who don't realize) is that *this* advantage (seeing the IS/VR action "stabilize" what you see in the viewfinder) is specific to the Can/Nik/on in-lens solutions. The in-body antishake (Sony, Pentax, Olympus... um... almost all the other camera-makers, I think) don't show in the viewfinder.

Note that this may be changing as tech advances -- when LiveView comes at streaming-video speeds from the main sensor, then sensor-based anti-shake will show you the effects on LiveView. Until that happens -- and even then, not through the optical viewfinder -- in-lens systems give your eye the same anti-shake benefit as the sensor.

This is, IMHO, *the* Big Advantage that in-lens has over sensor-based. And, as Michael notes, it can be a really telling issue when you're handling gear for a long time, or it's heavy, or etc...

FWIW, "*the* Big Advantage" for sensor-based antishake is the "all lens" advantage -- fast primes like 30mm/50mm/85mm 1.4's, cheap-but-good ones like 50/1.8, etc; these are "classic" low-light lenses, which cannot (yet) be had in anti-shake versions, but are anti-shaken (as are ALL lenses) on sensor-based systems (and frankly, I don't expect a "cheap" anti-shaken option from Canon or Nikon, the way you can grab an old Maxxum 50/1.7 on eBay for under a hundred bucks, and get a REALLY sharp, very fast moderate-telephoto 75mm equiv., anti-shaken on all the Sony bodies... ).


- Steve

A tripod or monopod is sometimes an alternative, but not always. I do one shoot where IS saves my bacon in a serious way, and it just wouldn't work without hand-holding the camera. I'm shooting a show, and I do a lot of moving around to get different angles, especially as the performers move. I tried taking a tripod to the first couple, and it just didn't work. I bought a monopod, and found it got in my way too since I was shooting from the floor, on chairs, etc. Finally I bough the 24-105 f/4L IS and that made me a million times happier.

Various camera magazines have run tests in IS and all have concluded that you get anywhere from 2 to 4 stops extra when shooting despite circumstances. Lens based IS tends to do better than in-camera sensor based IS. Here's why; IS in both cases work by a floating element (lens or sensor) that matches movement to keep things straight. A lens has a larger floating element than a sensor, obviously, thereby increasing its effectiveness, and it has more room to maneuver in, ie: the lens barrel. However, this might still be up to the individual. I have a steady hand, and camera and lens ergonomics can also play a part. When shooting my Nikon D200 with 70-300 IS lens (effectively giving me a 450mm focal length), I gained some extra stops shooting wildlife, but when I used my Olympus E-3 and their 70-300, the Oly is in-camera and I'm getting a 600mm equivalent, something different happened. In theory the longer focal length and the in-camera sensor based IS should not have performed as well, but it performed better. It's just that the E-3 has a grip that feels like it's tailored to my hand and that may have made the difference.