Image Stabilization

I anyone using in-camera image stabilization. I use Olympus E-series cameras, and I see that the Oly 510 comes with image stabilization in-camera (as opposed to in-lens). Anyone have any experiences?

Yes, the Pentax K10-D has in-camera stabilization and works very well.

The scuttlebutt is that for shorter lenses, the in-camera systems work great. With long lenses, there is more correction movement needed than they can create and the lens-based systems have an advantage. I have not seen a side to side comparision though.


Kent in SD

There is a lot of controversy over in-camera IS and in-lens IS. What Kent has already stated is what I hear, too. Wideangle to short telephoto magnifications, in-camera IS can move an imaging sensor around enough to compensate for camera shake. However, with longer telephoto lenses and subsequently higher image magnifications, the camera's sensor cannot be moved far enough to compensate for image movement due to camera shake. This is where in-lens IS has the advantage. An internal lens element does not need to be moved very far to compensate for image displacement due to camera shake. If you look at any manufacturers specs for in-camera IS you will always see that it stated that in-camera IS is compatible with "most" lenses. Not "all" lenses. Seems to me that using macro lenses would present the same problems as those posed using lonf telephoto lenses. Camera shake is magnified too much at macro magnifications for an in-camera image sensor to be moved adequately far enough to compensate for image displacement at high image magnifications. Heck, even friends of mine who own the Nikor 105mm macro lens with VR tell me that it is really not all that effective in reducing the effects of camera shake at high macro image magnifications.

In camera IS is assumed to be about 2 stops. Canon is almost two stops or better with noise. Shutter speed is more useful than IS.
Comparisons of camera IS v. lens IS need to look at the whole system.

I have had the Pentax K10D for a few months now, and in my experience the IS actually works better at longer focal than short. i have a 16-45, and in my tests the IS really didn't have an effect. Whereas the 50-200 definitly showed some improvement from the IS. I can't say exactly how much, but 2 stops average is probably safe to say. I haven't tried any focal length longer than 200mm.

I can't comment on the IS issue, I've never had that feature and for the kind of photography I prefer to do, it doesn't seem like a big advantage but I wanted to point out the the E410 also has in body IS. The next generation of the E1 ( whatever that will be called) will also have IS.

I appreciate very much the comments from everyone. There seems to be a consensus of sorts that IS might give me the equivalent of two stops or so; that's a pretty decent boost at my skill level. So it might very well be worth it. The abiity to move from a tripod to a monopod in average light conditions, for example.

The Olympus 410, so far as I know, isn't available in the U.S. I think I'll lug my 300mm down to Stewart Photo in July when the 510 is released and burn some electrons. Oly has other new features in the 510 that are attractive. And the price point lets me go ahead pending the release of the E-2. You can hear me rationalizing...