Serene Life

by garik

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Take the 2-minute tour ×
Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

This is related to "Is Image Stabilization better in the lens or the body?" - there are lenses with stabilization built-in, and there are bodies with it built-in.

What if a stabilizing lens is combined with a stabilizing body? Would the result be over-compensated, making as bad a mess as the original, or would the camera stabilization attempt to correct any residual motion the lens didn't compensate for?

share|improve this question
3  
This is a hypothetical question that really can't be answered. It could make a mess of things, or it could produce a tack sharp image, or it could cause the camera to see through women's underwear. Who knows. –  Alan Aug 2 '10 at 4:35
1  
It's hypothetical sure, but it can be answered. –  Reid Aug 2 '10 at 4:51
3  
@Reid: I disagree. The answer is "it wholly depends on how it's implemented." Two disparate IS systems put together produce a certain result, however does that mean all in-lens/in-body combination's are doomed to fail? A system could conceivably devised that shares IS data between body and lens, but this is pure speculation. –  Alan Aug 2 '10 at 5:53
1  
@Alan: if it really could see through woman's underwear (and outerwear) it would already have been invented and we would not be having this discussion -- we'd be too busy to using it. –  beggs Aug 2 '10 at 8:03
    
I have to agree with Alan...this is hypothetical, and it really doesn't have a decent answer. The answers that have been provided are all pretty speculative. –  jrista Aug 2 '10 at 20:37

4 Answers 4

up vote 3 down vote accepted

If the stabilisation in the camera is digital (i.e. analyses the image to do corrections), it would work with a stabilising lens. However, the stabilisation in the camera would only add anything when the movements are too much for the lens to handle on it's own.

If they are both mechanical, they react to movement of the camera instead of movement of the picture, so together they would overcompensate.

share|improve this answer

Yes, it would be over-compensated: The lens and body stabilization systems don't communicate with each other. You should disable one or the other.

I believe there were more standardized tests done on forums, but here is one.

share|improve this answer

Until a manufacturer offers such a combination, then we can only hypothesise.

The only case where I could see this being developed/useful, would be if the correction method differed between the two, for example, the lens may correct for vibration, whilst the body could potentially correct rotation.

If both were trying to solve the same type of problem (e.g. vibration), then you may end up with the camera disabling its stabilisation when a stabilised lens attached (or vice versa), so they didn't both try and fix the problem (leading to over-compensation), on the logic that one of them would have "more advanced" stabilisation.

share|improve this answer

It's certainly plausible that a system could evolve that used both, and it's plausible that it might work better (since they have different strengths). But it would be more expensive, so I doubt anyone would ever build such a system.

I believe you can actually do this (e.g. see Eruditass' answer, and perhaps in the 4/3 cameras?), but as mentioned, if the two systems don't communicate, they will overcompensate.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.