Does a digital camera with image stabilization need a lens with image stabilization?

This is an interesting question. You might need to go to someone with real authority for an answer. Maybe they would counteract each other, for all I know. Personally, I would choose one OR the other and not use both. If you are sticking to manufacturer's lenses, you probably can not find an image stabilized lens make by a camera maker who puts the "IS" in the body, but perhaps Sigma's aftermarket "OS" lenses would have a mount for those cameras. All I see on the market right now are made for Nikon, Canon and Sigma, but none for Pentax and so on, so maybe this is a non-issue.

Popular Photography writer Michael McNamara has a piece about image stabilization on-line. The two schools of thought are to either put the image stabilization technology in the lens (as Nikon, Canon and Sigma do) or in the camera (as Pentax, Olympus, Samsung and Sony do). He says, "So far, lens-based IS has the lead, with one Nikon VR lens logging a 3- to 4-stop improvement (a few big tele zooms barely reached 2 stops). In contrast, the best result from a sensor-shift DSLR is 2 to 3 stops, with the average closer to 2 stops." Read the whole article here: http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4615/ima... There is a chart on page two that is a real eye-opener. Far and away the best at image stabilization is the Nikon 18-200 VR lens, which shows gains of 3-to-4 stops!

If the camera has image stabillization you wont need a lens with it in it. The camera does all the work.

However some manufacturers have stated that the lens version of image stabilization is better. I dont know cause I have neither.

Okay, there seem to be some advantages to having IS on the camera ... no need to build expensive lenses ...

But wait.

It turns out that the BEST way to make IS work is to put it in the elements near the back of the lens ... and only the long lenses that usually cause images that show camera movement ... (remember the old 1/focal length of the lense being the longest shutter speed that dependable, no movement images could be shot?)

Here is a link that shows how all that works ...

http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/...

Generally speaking you can't get both. Manufacturers are opting to use one or the other (plus some software "stabilization" which is a different approach that can be combined with the mechanical stabilization built into a lens or camera).

The IS that is built into a camera or lens uses micro motors to move the image sensor or lens components to compensate for camera movement detected by motion sensors. Combining the two techniques could be self defeating because the effect of one could cancel the results of the other.

There are pros and cons to each method -

Built into the lens -
Pros: Stabilization is precisely tailored to the properties of the lens, generally somewhat superior results, may allow slower shutter speeds than "in camera".

Cons: Significantly higher cost, only available for a limited range of lenses, more complex lens designs, may be restricted selection of lenses based on compatibility with camera functions.

Built into Camera -
Pros: Works with most/all lenses that can be attached to camera, significantly lower cost, lens designs can be reduced in size, weight & complexity compared to those with IS built in.

Cons: Not as effective as built into lens, may be effected by the focal length of the lens, may require user to "identify" the characteristics of lens.

EDITORIAL COMMENT: IMO the idea of building IS into the lens has two key benefits 1) To the user, it can be VERY effective for long focal length lenses because sensors can be placed at the optimim point(s) to detect the range of motion of the specific lens. 2) To the manufacturer, it is a great marketing tool for the lens makers to sell more expensive and profitable lenses. On the other hand, IS built into the camera will provide benefits to users 1) Allowing those with existing lenses to benefit from the investment they already have in their optics 2) Provide them with a much wider range of alternatives when looking for additional lenses & a lower likelyhood of becoming obsolete.

Hope this helps.