How important is Image Stabilisation to you?

Danny_Two

Danny_Two

Messages
828
Edit My Images
No
Im intersted in the Olympus E420 mainly because of it's small size and low cost, but it has no I.S. It's bigger brother E520 has, but its quite a big camera in comparison.
I really need the smallest body I can get, and the 420 fits the bill. Im very interested in low light/night photography so ill be using a tripod a lot anyway.

You thoughts?
 
I have a 510. I find the IS handy when handheld in low light or long focal lengths.

But if you use a tripod then it will not matter since you should turn is off when using a tripod.

I think some of the Leica 4/3 lenses have IS in lens if you decide you really need IS in a small form (and win the lottery)
 
The E520 isn't much bigger, there is very little in it, the grip on the RHS is the biggest difference but that really doesn't affect the size in practical terms. Maybe the E620 fits your requirements better, it has IS and all the features of the E520 and more but is the same size as the E420.
I think IS is worth having if you can get a camera that has it and suits you in other respects but if you are planning to use a tripod for shots that require low shutter speeds then IS is redundant.
As an Oly user I'd question whether the E series models are the best for low light photography, while they are excellent cameras for most purposes low light photography is their archilles heal and there may be more suited models from other manufacturers that are better for that type of photography.

Paul
 
Im a canon user so i.s is on lenses i really could'nt do without it i get shots i would'nt otherwise get ie grab shots in low light no time to set up tripod when i first started photography there was no i.s or autofocus all manual and i would'nt go back.
Regards
Lost
 
I use the IS on the shorter zoom lengths but switch it off and use bean bag/mono pod/tripod image stabilization when using the longer focal length zooms.
 
Woofmix said:
As an Oly user I'd question whether the E series models are the best for low light photography, while they are excellent cameras for most purposes low light photography is their archilles heal and there may be more suited models from other manufacturers that are better for that type of photography.

Paul
Click to expand...

Oh, really? That's another couple of days of internet research wasted.
 
Its not very important to me as I always keep the shutter speed above 1/250 or atleast 1/50 above the focal length and it all works out fine.

If you can afford it I guess it wouldn't hurt, can always turn it off.
 
If as you say you're likely to be using a tripod a lot then you just don't need IS. You need a good tripod! :LOL:

On the other hand... and being a bit more serious, if you gave me the choice of two similar lenses, one with IS and the other without it, then I'd choose the one with IS every time. It can be really useful, and I've got shots that just wouldn't have been possible without it.
 
The older you get the more you need IS
Also the longer the focal length the more you need IS.
 
IS is nice to have but there's nothing you can do with it you can't do just as well or better with a steady object (wall, tree, tripod, monopod, bit of stick...)
 
I've found IS essential for motorsport and equestrain stuff, particually my equestrian photography. I got a MUCH better hit rate with IS on than off during a little experiement a while back (with the same lens).

Its dependant on light levels though, as if you can get a shutter speed thats fast enough you wont really need it, but for low to mediocre light levels I wont use a telephoto without it!
 
Image Stabilisation systems are brilliant. Should you get it? Absolute no brainer IMHO.

Why would you not want a feature that is as good as having an instant built in tripod? You can hand hold at shutter speeds of two, three and even four stops longer than without IS. 1/60sec becomes the equivalent of 1/4sec on a tripod. How incredible is that? And there is no penalty for this, apart maybe from cost.

And sometimes there doesn't appear to be any extra cost either - if it's built in to the camera, obviously zero cost to additional lenses, and most IS/VR lenses don't appear to carry a premium either, eg Canon 17-55 2.8 IS, a superb lens by any standard, is actually cheaper than the identical spec Nikon without VR. Of course the famous Canon 70-200 zooms are much more expensive with IS, but I can't think of any others off hand, and I was happy to pay the extra for my 70-200 4 IS, and I think it is a much more useful lens, for me, than the f/2.8 non-IS lens all things considered.

Camera shake kills more sharpness than any other cause, and the extra magnification that you get with crop format digital makes long lenses even more prone to shake than they are on full frame or film cameras. There is no such thing as zero camera shake, it is only ever reduced to acceptable levels but it's always there, eating away at critical sharpness, often unnoticed as the cause of the slightly soft images we strive so hard to avoid.

The other thing about in-lens IS/VR is that it stabilises the viewfinder image whereas in-camera does not. With long lenses this makes framing moving subjects a heck of a lot easier, and it makes tighter framing easier with any subject for even more quality upsides.

I honestly think whole question is a non debate TBH.
 
odd jim said:
I've found IS essential for motorsport and equestrain stuff, particually my equestrian photography. I got a MUCH better hit rate with IS on than off during a little experiement a while back (with the same lens).
Click to expand...

conversly i dont use IS for motorsport and horsey stuff and i dont miss it at all.

personally i think its down to technique.
 
Another thought, when handholding I think it depends on what you are shooting, if it's birds or wildlife or even sports I have found you need to use a high shutter speed to avoid motion blur (the subject moving or flapping it's wings etc) and as such the shutter speed is already high enough to avoid any blur caused by camera shake but if it's static things you are shooting then since motion blur is no longer an issue you can use much lower shutter speeds and under those conditions IS is useful.

Paul
 
neil_g said:
conversly i dont use IS for motorsport and horsey stuff and i dont miss it at all.

personally i think its down to technique.
Click to expand...

Indeed - I'm used to using it so need to adjust when not using it which takes practice. However, my 10-22 doesnt have it and I still get sharp images from that. But thats down to the different usage, the quality of the glass and that at 10mm you dont really need IS.

However, as with Hoppy's comments above - how can a system designed to reduce shake not help create a sharper shot? Especially at long focal lengths where even the slightest movement is muliplied by X.

It also means, most of the time (unless you are doing night photography), you dont have to lug a tripod around along with everything else.
 
I can handhold my Bigma @ 500mm 1/180 and get sharp shots most of the time.
This is the main reason I decided not to jump from my Pentax to a Nikon D300 ... The Bigma has no IS/VR/SR, IMO the 150-500mm is not as good and I couldn't afford (Dont want to part with) the cash to buy a long VR enabled lens.

I also really hate tripods ....:shrug:
 
odd jim said:
how can a system designed to reduce shake not help create a sharper shot?
Click to expand...

but it depends what youre shooting, on a tripod IS is recommended to be turned off. IS also doesnt help with moving subjects (the 2 mode IS mode excluded for panning maybe).

like i say i guess its down to preference and technique. ive never had a situation where ive thought "hmm i wish i had IS", but then thats what F2.8 comes in handy for sometimes?

PERSONALLY i wouldnt say you NEED IS..
 
At low light or longer zoom IS is a great advantage allowing you to shoot and hopefully negate that bit of camera shake. I leave it off most of the time and switch it on when needed. Not an essential but a nice to have in my case.
 
heidfirst said:
you also get used to having it - & then miss it when you don't ... :p
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more.
Recently, I bought a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 from another member.
I've tried for a fews days really hard to get used to a non IS and I failed misserably.
To say I was gutted is an understatement because I really wanted a f/2.8 lens that be would fine throughout it's focus range.
I've now sadly sold it to another member who I am sure will get some great shots from it.
Knowing that my only option is a Canon 17-55mm IS f/2.8 has gutted me as they are too expensive.
Perhaps if I persisted I would crack the technique but I just don't have the time or patience.
I don't have any problems with my 10-22 being non IS and obviously in my case it's down to the focal length of the lens.
 
Hi Danny :wave:

Firstly welcome to the forum :D

Personally i have found IS to be a very valuable tool. I shoot a lot of fast paced subjects with football, cricket and wildlife being the bulk of what i shoot

IS really comes into its own in poor lighting conditions and with sports etc. It can also have a big effect on improving your results when hand holding at lower shutter speeds. But it doesnt make as much difference as having "fast glass". Being able to shoot f/2 or f/2.8 rather than f/4 or f/5.6 makes a massive difference

Andy
 
Here's a good example of IS at work. Shot with my 55-250 IS at Marwell zoo in the very dark lizard house. This was handheld at 1/30 sec at 123mm at f5 (using natural light of course) through the glass

IMG_8247.jpg


I dont think it could have been done without IS.
 
I'm upgrading my e-410 to the e-620 in the next few weeks. I saw one body only for 499. My main reason is IS - especially shooting with the zuiko 300m which is top heavy on the wee 410 body. the 620 is similar size, but has the built in Is which should help when not tripodding.

To me IS is my reason for shelling out for a new body - so I guess its pretty important to me - although I am glad I have learnt to shoot without IS for now, makes you pay more attention to geting the shot right and leaning on trees and lying on your belly!!
 
odd jim said:
Here's a good example of IS at work. Shot with my 55-250 IS at Marwell zoo in the very dark lizard house. This was handheld at 1/30 sec at 123mm at f5 (using natural light of course) through the glass

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c11/Williams25/IMG_8247.jpg

I dont think it could have been done without IS.
Click to expand...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/neilgates/2978804137/in/set-72157608430217759/

Exposure: 0.013 sec (1/80)
Aperture: f/2.8
Focal Length: 70 mm
ISO Speed: 400

;)
 
Nice, but I cant afford an f2.8 lens!. We're comparing the £170 Canon 55-250 with the £600 Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG I'm assuming (with the £170 IS lens getting comparable results??)? ;)
 
Just a thought here, and a little off topic but, we can buy teleconverters and extension tubes and they put IS/VR etc into camera bodies so why has no one created an IS/VR converter... surely the technology is there? imagine all your old lenses were VR... they,d sell em by the truckload!
 
Ok then - to summarise!

With fast expensive lenses, IS/OS isnt such a benefit. However, with slower lenses, such as 'budget' zooms (and Mike's £70 Tamron, lol!) it helps them punch well above their weight and is much more of a benefit.

There we have it (I think) :)
 
Another thought for you tripods are not allowed in some places so which is better a 70-200mm 2.8 with i.s or one without i.s. Remembering i.s is worth about 3 stops of light 4 if you have the 70-200 f4 canon make. All im pointing out is i.s does make a difference and for me i made a lot more money with it than without
Regards
Lost
 
I use the Pentax K20D with IS (SR) built into the body and find it invaluable sometimes...I use a monopod whilst hiking as my tripod is just too bulky and the combination of monopod/IS allows me to get some tack sharp shots, definitely a useful bit of technology (y)

Simon
 
its not, if I need IS I need a tripod.


Danny_Two said:
Im intersted in the Olympus E420 mainly because of it's small size and low cost, but it has no I.S. It's bigger brother E520 has, but its quite a big camera in comparison.
I really need the smallest body I can get, and the 420 fits the bill. Im very interested in low light/night photography so ill be using a tripod a lot anyway.

You thoughts?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top