One of the more recent developments in digital camera technology is image stabilization. Digital camera manufacturers are sticking the technology into their lenses and bodies left and right, promising photos that blur less as a result of shaky hands or slow shutter speeds. Consumers seem to be buying into image stabilization left and right, often paying a hefty premium for digital cameras with image stabilization technology.

But is image stabilization worth it? Here’s our take.

[eminimall]

Image stabilization is a mechanical correction. Typically, there is some sort of gyroscope or magnetic mechanism inside the lens or digital camera that dampens the effect of vibration. This can be effective - tests have shown that image stabilization enables photographers to shoot hand-held at two stops lower than they typically could without any noticeable blur.

What image stabilization does not do is allow more light into the lens itself. This is a common misconception. Image stabilization has no effect in and of itself on exposure, only on the sharpness of resulting image. Now, as Pedro Pinheiro points out in the comments on this article, image stabilization does allow you some additional flexibility in the aperture and shutter speed combinations you can choose, which can allow you to take a photo hand held with a slower shutter speed than you would otherwise. Just don’t make the mistake of thinking that image stabilization itself allows more light into the camera lens - only a faster aperture or shutter speed can accomplish that.

Pedro also highlights another fundamental problem with image stabilization - it has no effect on the outside world. Pedro summarizes this nicely, so I’ll simply quote here.

For photographs of moving subjects (as kids running), a 1/15s shot is always a 1/15s shot - everything that is still will be sharp, the kids will be blurs. Image Stabilization only corrects the movements of the camera - it doesn’t “freeze” the outside world.

Now the big question: is image stabilization worth it? It depends. Camera manufacturers are tossing image stabilization into more and more digital cameras and lenses. Many of the optics on the consumer-level digital cameras are poor to begin with - resulting in less-than-sharp photographs before image stabilization is even turned on. In these cases, the benefits of image stabilization may be seldom noticed.

Where image stabilization really shines in in the higher-quality lenses, like Canon’s F/2.8 70-200mm IS lens for the EF series of digital SLRs. Optics that are already tack-sharp are strengthened by the addition of image stabilization, and the lens’s low aperture becomes even more versatile. Unfortunately, image stabilization comes at a hefty premium on lens like this, with prices often $400-500 higher for a stabilization version than one lacking IS.

Image stabilization will never hurt as a feature, and there are some tangible benefits to it. But just consider the type of photography you will be pursuing. For landscape photography in broad daylight, image stabilization isn’t going to do you a lot of good. Image stabilization may not be as useful on your point-and-shoot digital camera either, as the limitations of the camera optics have more of an effect on image sharpness that IS ever would. But generally, if you can find a lens or digital camera with image stabilization at a good price, it’s a feature worth having.

Like what you see? Join our newsletter.