Canon shows why optical and in-body stabilization both have a place

For many years there was something of an ideological struggle between the brands that pursued optical image stabilization and those that adopted an in-body approach. Or, to be more precise, between fans, owners and proponents of those brands.

The pro-lens crowd would willfully overlook the fact that their brand had adopted optical stabilization in the film era, when it was the only practical option, and focus on the fact that optical stabilization is better at correcting the large image displacements that can occur with telephoto lenses.

The in-body side of the debate focused on the fact that sensor-shift stabilization worked with every lens they had and was better at correcting the impact of translational movements, that can bedevil wide-angle and macro shooting.

We’ve just found a diagram by Canon that rather elegantly settles the debate, showing the relative strengths and weaknesses of optical and in-body stabilization. As the diagram makes clear both sides were right. And wrong for indulging in cross-brand bickering, obviously.

What Canon points out in the accompanying, rather marketing-led article, is that this means you can get further benefit by co-ordinating the efforts of both approaches and having them work co-operatively. This is something we first saw with Panasonic’s Dual IS 2 system and that had subsequently appeared across most brands, in the intervening years.

As a site that does its best to explain some of the more complex behaviors in photography, we appreciate a good diagram more than most.

Source link