In-lens image stabilization compared to sensor based shake reduction (SR, IS, VR, OS, VC compared)
There seems to be a common myth that image stabilization that is built into the lens peforms better than a sensor-based image stabilization system. I’ve seen people go as far as claiming that sensor based systems only give 1-2 stops of hand-holdability and then quote manufacturers’ marketing material about in-lens systems giving 4 stops advantage.
If you’re reading this, then you may be wondering which is better? The first thing you should do, is ignore the manufacturers. They seem to practically compete in who dares to promise the most “stops of hand holdability”. Image stabilization is great, I would not buy a camera without one, but that’s about all you should believe of the marketing.
For the record, here are the advantage in stops that different manufacturers promise for their image stabilization systems (and the different acronyms explained):
- Nikon: 4 stops (18-200 VR / Vibration Reduction)
- Canon: 3 stops (70-200/2.8 L IS / Image Stabilization)
- Sigma: 4 stops (120-400/4.5-5.6 OS / Optical Stabilization)
- Tamron: 4 stops (18-270/3.5-6.3 VC / Vibration Compensation)
- Pentax: 2.5 – 4 stops (K20D SR / Shake Reduction)
