It appears that in-body image stabilization is just as good as lens IS

[jon_k]

Check out this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPdy52mR6Io

A lens with IS for the 4/3 system is put on an E-510 with in-body IS.

The guy compares in-body IS with in-lens IS.

I think the in-body IS works just as good or better than lens IS.

What justifies the cost of the expensive IS lenses?

[jeffkohn]

From what I've read, in-lens IS becomes more effective as the focal lengths get longer. Additionally, with in-lens IS the view through the viewfinder is also stabilized.

[TheObiJuan]

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

From what I've read, in-lens IS becomes more effective as the focal lengths get longer. Additionally, with in-lens IS the view through the viewfinder is also stabilized.

Spot on, Jeff!

[txphotog]

The only problem with an in camera system is how is the light hitting the sensor properly when the sensor is moving?

[tragic hero]

post #2 and #4 hit it right on the nose. Ive always heard after about 135mm you cant effectively do in body stabilization.

[chenology]

pfft who needs IS? steady hands, mate!

[andyz]

From what I've seen the longer focal lengths require more correction and the lens can move more than the camera's chip. That is why it performs better.

[jon_k]

Ahh,

I see! It would be nice of Oly was going the ways of lens IS for all their telephoto's. That in-body could handle closer focal lengths and beyond that the lens IS could be used. Good to know. Seems like both have their place, but in-lens IS comes most valuable with high focal lengths in which in-body is pointless.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by tragic hero

post #2 and #4 hit it right on the nose. Ive always heard after about 135mm you cant effectively do in body stabilization.

Nor is it easily done with FF sensors.