Optical stabilization, how important is it?

[MJP]

Now correct me if I'm wrong but Canikons finest are not optically stabilised (as regards in-body shake reduction) and some of their most popular lenses, such as the Nikkor 14-24 and 24-70 f/2.8 are not optically stabilised either.

Pentax allege their in-body Shake Reduction adds a couple of stops of light.

So with regard to shorter focal lengths (say 50mm and below on 35mm equivalent) for low light work, how important is optical stabilization, in either lens or body and which is the best, lens or body?

A thousand thank you's in advance!

[FracturedRabbit]

The Olympus 5-axis stabilisation in the E-M5 and E-M1 is pretty impressive. I don't have the steadiest of hands, but I can get away with ridiculously low speeds, which is useful in low light if you don't want to use high ISO, or in near darkness when it is the only way you will get the shot.

This was taken hand-held at 1/6th second at 16mm (32mm effective) with the E-M1.

[fimgirl]

Lets put it another way. If you're using fast glass with a high ISO noise efficient (read low noise) sensor I doubt you'd need the additional F stops that image stabilzation purports to bring. Last night I shot a Takraw tournament on my Canon 5D MKii using both a 50mm F1.2L and 85mm F1.2L. These guys move real quick. No image stabilazation here. Nighttime event. Spotlight only lighting. Shooting at f1.4 on both lenses I was able to use 1/1000th at ISO 3200. Images tack sharp and noise free. The guy next to me had a 7D and an Image stabilised 70-200 F4 L. His plus 2 stops "advantage" didn't help here. He couldn't up the ISO above 1600 for fear of noise. His F4 lens was 3 stops out from me, plus I stop on ISO. He was stuck at a maximum usable speed of 1/250th and got nothing. Ok, DOF was limited for me, but that's what I wanted for the shoot. If my two lenses where image stabilised I could have reduced the ISO to (say) 800 which which would have had little, if any, advantage on the 5D sensor. I didn't want more DOF or speed. The point I'm making here is stabilisation really only comes to the fore when using slow lenses in tricky conditions. Fast glass with it's unique rendering, coupled with high usable ISO is more appealing and usable than stabilisation. It's a generalisation I know but one I'm sold on.

I don't have any gear that's stabilised and have never been in a situation that a good sensor and a fast lens failed.

Just my opinion thou.

Edited November 26, 2013 by fimgirl

[astral]

In my teens and early twenties I could hand hold a 15th sec with a 50mm lens on a 35mm format

At 66 I need all the stabilisation the camera can offer

I have Canon with the stabilisation in the lens, much the best choice IMHO

as the stabilisation needed varies with focal length.

[FracturedRabbit]

Stabilisation in the lens is meant to be better for video, and is more effective with extreme focal lengths. Stabilisation in the body can be more effective otherwise; or so I have read, I know bugger all about the science involved.

The big advantage of in-body stabilisation is that it will stabilise everything. Typically manufacturers only include stabilisation in the longer lenses; and older lenses of any length have no stabilisation at all.

I have the 5-axis stabilisation switched on by default in my E-M1. If a system lens is attached; it knows the focal length and adapts the IS accordingly. If I attach a legacy lens, I tell the IS system what focal length I am using. If I attach a long telephoto (100-300mm from Panasonic), I turn on the lens stabilisation and turn off the body (although I have tested using in-body and did not spot any degradation).

At the end of the day, it comes down to which system you are tied into; you are unlikely to change systems just to get your (shaky) hands on an alternative stabilisation offering.