Image Stabilization

Behind the Scenes

Manufacturers use a variety of image stabilization technologies - does it matter to you?

How Stabilization Works

Image or optical stabilization compensates for camera motion when you are hand holding the camera. There are two dominant approaches for this, stabilizing the lens and stabilizing the sensor. With two technical choices, you may have already (correctly) guessed that there are strong religious views as to which is best.

It is not important to know the the gory details of each technology, but it is helpful to have an understanding of how they work. Here,then, is an overview of the approaches, who manufactures each, and their pros and cons.

Lens-Based Stabilization

Canon and Nikon are at the forefront of lens-based digital image stabilization. Their lenses include

Ted's Hardcopy Reference Do you want more details on stabilization techniques? I found an excellent book from Que publishing: "How Digital Photography Works", by Ron White, illustrated by Tim Downs, ©2007. This has a wealth of detail on all aspects of digital camera operation. In chapter 8, White describes four different stabilization techniques, the two described here, plus electronic image stabilization and a vari-angle prism system. You can find the book at Amazon, here.

sensors that detect lens motion in both vertical and horizontal directions, and all directions in between. In response, tiny motors in the lens shift a lens element in the opposite direction to compensate for the motion.

Sensor-Based (In-Camera) Stabilization

Konica Minolta pioneered image stabilization in the camera. Sony has acquired Minolta and uses the same technology in its cameras. Olympus and Pentax also use in-camera stabilization. Essentially, this approach uses sensors inside the camera body to detect motion and shift the sensor along its X and Y axes as necessary to compensate.

Pros and Cons. Which is Best?

Both technologies work well, but you can expect proponents of each to sell you on technical excellence. If you are like me, you really won't know how to judge on a technical level.

The differences are really of interest for DSLR owners, because you truly have a choice between lens-based and in-camera solutions.

Here are some important points for you to consider:

• In-camera stabilization works for all lenses, so you don't need to pay extra for a stabilized lens.
  
  
• With lens-based stabilization, when you buy your stabilized lens, you can always choose the latest stabilization technology.
  
  
• Conversely, with in-camera stabilization you must buy a new camera body to take advantage of technology advances.
  
  
• A similar argument exists regarding the need for repairs - it is the difference of inconvenience between sending a single lens in versus having to send in your camera.

Diehard lens-based advocates also add these weaker arguments:

• With in-camera stabilization, if the mechanism fails, it fails for all lenses, although it is not clear how often such failures occur with either in-camera or lens-based solutions.
  
  
• Lens-based stabilization delivers a steady image to the eye piece; in-camera does not. But, photographers have been shooting handheld for decades without the benefit of stabilization for the viewfinder and survived just fine.

In practice, I think few people choose their camera based upon the type of image stabilization it offers. Any stabilization is better than none. Other characteristics, such as overall lens quality and selection, sensor sensitivity, light metering and auto-focus capabilities, and general feel in the hands, to name a few, all factor into the question of which camera to buy.

Still, it is useful to be aware of the type of stabilization your camera supports, especially as you look to buy third-party lenses. And, if you've been thinking about buying a second body, maybe knowing that your stabilization is in the body is enough to push you over the edge to make that decision, just to have a backup - or do you really need an excuse?