Tech Tuesday: Stabilization

There have been some discussions in the blogosphere regarding lens based stabilization vs body based stabilization. Before we get into the differences, lets ask what and why about stabilization.

What & Why

First and foremost, stabilization is simply to reduce the effect of camera shake. This could be caused by vibration from the platform one is standing on, wind, nerves, or simply the process of aging. A byproduct of this stabilizing effect is the ability to run a slower shutter speed which is a major cause of camera shake not mentioned above. The what is one of two possibilities; that being the moving of the lens or sensor is such a way that negates a certain level of camera movement.

Shake

Stabilizing an image from shake allows the photographer a certain leniency regarding how stable he or she holds the camera. There is an inherent shake that occurs with a telephoto lens where any movement at all will be exaggerated by the zoom factor of the lens. Stabilization allows a sharper image for a given focal length when hand holding.

Shutter Speed

In low light conditions the photographer can slow the shutter speed allowing more light to increase the exposure. This extra time must be compensated for by holding the camera frozen still. This is usually done by using a tripod. Another traditional methodology is to use faster glass or open up the aperture as much as you could to soak in as much light as possible. Stabilization now allows the photographer to slow the shutter speed that results in a 2 to 4 stop equivalent. This technology paired with the new very high ISO (3200 and 6400) cameras provides the photographer the ability to take natural light photos in conditions that a couple of years ago would have been unheard of.

Lens vs Sensor

Nobody debates the benefits of stabilization, the controversy comes when it comes to body or lens based stabilization. It appears the two largest camera manufacturers (Canon and Nikon) have gone the way of lens stabilization. Others have decided that body based stabilization would be more beneficial to the end user. The issue I see comes down to cost vs performance. So which logic is better. It seems the less distance (amplitude) an object has to move, the more often (frequency) the object can be moved. What is this saying?

Lens Stabilization

When camera shake is sensed the the movement mechanism will adjust one of the lens elements to redirect the image so the sensor picks-up the photons as though the camera was not moving. Each stabilizing lens mechanism is specifically designed for that lens.

Body Stabilizing

IN this case when shake is sensed, the stabilizing mechanism will position the sensor to where the image is being focused. The benefit to this design is that all lenses mounted on the camera become stabilized.

Which one is Better

Well, there are pro's and con's for each of the. For lens stabilization the costs added is tremendous for each stabilized lens but the stabilization is designed for that particular glass set. For body based stabilization there is no additional cost for lenses. On the other hand the process is generic. This might be ok for shorter lenses, but there is some question if the sensor movement is adequate for longer lenses. A telephoto lens will cause a greater deviation and the concern in the blogosphere is that there swill be a sacrifice in performance with these lenses.

Conclusion

Clearly body based stabilization is much more cost effective than lens based but there is a reason that Canon and Nikon have stood by the lens stabilized process. Some may say that the big two simply want to grab more money for each lens. I beg to differ as professional photographers overwhelmingly choose either Canon or Nikon systems. They choose gear based on performance and dependability, not necessarily cost.

Caveat: The diagrams are not intended to emulate the actual process of each type of stabilization but rather provide a rudimentary graphic of each of the processes.

Take care... Doug