Looking for a technical explanation from image quality angle, not cost. I've never seen any direct comparisons between the two.
Logically, though, it's only necessary to shift lens elements, as is done by in-lens stabilization systems, fractions of a millimeter in order to see a big effect in the image. This means that in order to stabilize the image, the in-lens gyros only have to shift the lens around a small amount.
At the same time, stabilization performed at the sensors might sometimes require as much as a few millimeters of shifting to stabilize the image.
In practical terms, I don't think that it makes much of a difference on fairly short lenses.
On long lenses, though, say anything longer than about 400mm, I really can't see stabilization at the sensor being all that effective, while stabilization within the lens would be very effective. I don't have facts to back this up, but my opinion would be, if put under the microscope so-to-speak, that in-the-lens stabilization would be better. Engineers could construct the stabilization to be no-compromise perfect for that particular lens. In-camera methods would need compromises to work with all lenses, wide-angle to telephoto.
This is just my opinion.
I would say, however, that if you're trying to decide what camera to buy through comparing in-camera to in-lens stabilization methods you're standing WAY too close to the wall. The differences - if there are any - would be impossible for people like you and I to judge. Step back from the wall and give yourself a broader view. The camera for you is the one that makes you love photography and makes you want to make thousands of pictures.
--
Disclosure: I am the owner of www.lenslenders.com lens rentals in Canada. |
