# Advice for In-Camera Stabilization Body



## JumboShrimp (Aug 9, 2016)

I have several vintage telephoto lenses, all the way from pristine Nikkors to well-worn Takumars to barely-usable Vivitars, and am seeking a used camera body with built-in stabilization that would allow use of these things, with stabilization, of course. I think only Pentax and Sony (?) make camera bodies such as these. Perhaps someone could share their experiences so I could make an intelligent, and reasonably priced, purchase. The body would ideally be full-frame but I could also consider APS-C, too. (Not interested in MFT or any other small format.) Thanks in advance.


----------



## tolusina (Aug 9, 2016)

FFD on the body has to be less than that of the lens or equal once the thickness of whatever adapter used is added to the stack.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance


----------



## tcmatthews (Aug 9, 2016)

The Sony A7 II and A7rII work really well for this when set up properly. Short flange distance means that they can use virtual any lens you can come up with. Of course some classic wide angle glass will have trouble with the short flange distance. But I have not found it that noticeable.


----------



## sdsr (Aug 9, 2016)

tcmatthews said:


> The Sony A7 II and A7rII work really well for this when set up properly. Short flange distance means that they can use virtual any lens you can come up with. Of course some classic wide angle glass will have trouble with the short flange distance. But I have not found it that noticeable.



I agree. Besides that, another advantage these Sony bodies have over Pentax (whose flange distance, like those of other dslrs, is incompatible with some lens designs) is that, being mirrorless + EVF, they are much easier to focus than on any dslr, thanks to the combination of magnification and focus peaking. It's wonderful being able to use just about any lens, regardless of who made it and when, on the same camera body; such lenses are mostly what I use on my a7rII (my two Sony/Zeiss FE lenses are probably feeling a bit neglected...).


----------



## JumboShrimp (Aug 10, 2016)

Thanks everyone for the responses. Much appreciated.


----------



## candc (Aug 11, 2016)

I have been using some canon fd lenses including a 80-200 f/4l on a Sony a7rii. It works very well. You have to tell the the camera what the fl of the lens is because the ibis works differently depending on the fl. 

Its not a bif setup but focus peaking and magnification are great for static subjects.


----------



## Nitroman (Aug 11, 2016)

So am i right by assuming that Sony cameras allow image stabilization on all lenses - even those with M42 to Sony mount ?

I'm no expert on Sony ... but i'd love this on my Canons


----------



## candc (Aug 11, 2016)

Nitroman said:


> So am i right by assuming that Sony cameras allow image stabilization on all lenses - even those with M42 to Sony mount ?
> 
> I'm no expert on Sony ... but i'd love this on my Canons



Afaik yes, there is no communication between the camera and lens with fd lenses. Ibis works with them so I don't see why it would be any different with any other "non communicating" manual lenses. 

If you are using a modern adapted lens that has "is" built into the lens then the camera ibis switches off by default.


----------



## Labdoc (Aug 11, 2016)

I don't see them mentioned much on this site, Olympus and Panasonic both have IS camera SLR bodies. Less MP than Sony but a lot less expensive too.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 11, 2016)

Labdoc said:


> I don't see them mentioned much on this site, Olympus and Panasonic both have IS camera SLR bodies. Less MP than Sony but a lot less expensive too.



I was going to mention them but the OP said he is not interested in MFT


----------



## sdsr (Aug 12, 2016)

Nitroman said:


> So am i right by assuming that Sony cameras allow image stabilization on all lenses - even those with M42 to Sony mount ?
> 
> I'm no expert on Sony ... but i'd love this on my Canons



The IBIS works on any lens you attach to the camera (with some Sony lenses that have IS the two work together, resulting in better stabilization). With lenses that don't communicate electronically with the camera you have to tell the camera what the focal length is so that it knows how much anti-shake to apply (it's easy to assign this function to one of the many buttons on the camera); plus, of course, you have to remember to change it when you switch to a lens with a different focal length.... (You have to do the same thing with other cameras with IBIS too, such as Olympus.) Thus, if the Canon lenses you refer to are EF/EF-S and you attach them via a metabones adapter, you won't have to manually set the focal length for the IBIS because the adapter automatically sends that information to the camera (the same is presumably true of other similar adapters). But if they are, say, FD lenses you will have to do it manually. The resulting stabilization may not be as good as IS or the IS/IBIS combination for native lenses, but it's still wonderful to have with lenses that don't have IS.


----------



## sdsr (Aug 12, 2016)

Labdoc said:


> I don't see them mentioned much on this site, Olympus and Panasonic both have IS camera SLR bodies. Less MP than Sony but a lot less expensive too.



They're mirrorless, not SLR. Anyway, there are non-trivial differences - on m43 bodies the IBIS can more effective because it's easier to stabilize the much smaller sensor, but the smaller sensor size results in a crop factor of 2, which effectively doubles the focal length of any lens you attach, which may be a nuisance or a virtue, depending on what you want from your lenses. Plus the smaller sensor size results in more noise at any given ISO - though the excellence of the IBIS in the better Olympus camera bodies may allow you to use a sufficiently slower shutter speed that you will end up with a lower ISO and less noise - provided a slower shutter speed is otherwise suitable for your purpose. For that reason, m43 cameras can be surprisingly good in very low light (and, given the added depth of field at any given aperture, you can get more in focus at wider apertures and thus often have nothing to lose by using lenses wide open). When I was in Paris a couple of months ago I took quite a lot of photos at night, all hand-held, with 45mm 1.8 and 75mm 1.8 wide open on my OMD EM1 at 1/15, resulting in marvelously sharp, detailed photos at base ISO (200). (Too bad I had yet to acquire the Panaleica 42.5 1.2....) So which works best doesn't have an obvious, unambiguous answer.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 13, 2016)

My take is that is doesn't work nearly as well for long telephoto lenses as in lens IS, and for a old lens, it will be worse.

Unless you have some very expensive old telephoto glass, buying a FF mirrorless just to use it with poor IS is a waste of $$. You might sell your old lenses and buy modern ones and along with the money saved from buying another body, you could get a really nice lens.

If you want a mirrorless camera for some other reason, and just want to spend the money to play with the old lenses, I'd chose the camera based on the features you need for it, and not by how well it adapts IS to old glass.


----------

