Video of IS working

Wow cool explanation.

Thanks for sharing!
 
That'll never work! hahahahaha Isn't IS an mazing piece of kit.
 
I thought it was going to get all technical... :(
 
Having recently bought an IS lens I have made the decision to never buy a non IS lens again unless it is only available without IS, i.e. the 85mm f1.8 prime. I've taken a shot at around 200mm at 1/6 second and it has still come out sharp!
 
CSB said:
Having recently bought an IS lens I have made the decision to never buy a non IS lens again unless it is only available without IS, i.e. the 85mm f1.8 prime. I've taken a shot at around 200mm at 1/6 second and it has still come out sharp!
Click to expand...

Ignore what I wrote below, I misread your reply :)

How come you hate it so much?
For me IS is very useful in the right conditions. It helps a lot in low light or when using long lenses when you have reasonably stationery subjects. It doesn't necessarily degrade the image quality either as the 70-200 f/4 with IS is actually sharper than the one without IS. Given the choice and the money I'd go for the IS version every time.
 
Does it really move that much! :eek: IS etc is a brilliant invention. Camera-shake used to kill more pictures than anything else, but that is now history.
 
Col_M said:
How come you hate it so much?
For me IS is very useful in the right conditions. It helps a lot in low light or when using long lenses when you have reasonably stationery subjects. It doesn't necessarily degrade the image quality either as the 70-200 f/4 with IS is actually sharper than the one without IS. Given the choice and the money I'd go for the IS version every time.
Click to expand...

Actually he says he likes it and that he will only buy a non-IS lens if an IS equivalent is not available.

Though I read it the way that you interpreted it the first time too! :thinking:
 
HoppyUK said:
Does it really move that much! :eek: IS etc is a brilliant invention. Camera-shake used to kill more pictures than anything else, but that is now history.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking that it doesn't normally have to move that much and that the demo is exaggerated somewhat.

A video of something moving a tiny bit might be underwhelming.
 
it's alive said:
Actually he says he likes it and that he will only buy a non-IS lens if an IS equivalent is not available.

Though I read it the way that you interpreted it the first time too! :thinking:
Click to expand...
HAHA yeah you're right, ignore me :bonk:
 
it's alive said:
I'm thinking that it doesn't normally have to move that much and that the demo is exaggerated somewhat.

A video of something moving a tiny bit might be underwhelming.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing the same. It's still good that it can move that much if it needs to. As has been said above, IS has transformed what I can do with my photography, it lets you get away with some ridiculously slow shutter speeds and still come away with a pin sharp image.
 
HoppyUK said:
Camera-shake used to kill more pictures than anything else, but that is now history.
Click to expand...
Somehow I can't imagine the iconic Robert Capa D-Day pictures taken with IS.....

capa_d-day1.jpg
 
Voyager said:
Somehow I can't imagine the iconic Robert Capa D-Day pictures taken with IS.....

capa_d-day1.jpg
Click to expand...

LOL Yeah, great image.

But Capa, yes, him. I wonder. No stranger to controversy is he ;) Looks to me like he jogged the englarger when he made that print... :thinking:

Shutter speed is short enough to freeze the moving water, and also the soldier who doesn't look like he's lying there posing. It should therefore be enough to stop most camera movement. Unless he was in a hurry of course! Still, it's unusual to have camera shake so clearly defined as that, but not impossible. On the other hand, if you just jogged the enlarger during exposure, to deliberately add a bit of drama, that's exactly how it would look.

Edit: since I'm in conspiracy mood, he could also have used a touch of soft focus under the enlarger which, in negative form, blurs the dark areas into the lighter ones. And he could have dabbed the sky with neat developer to bring out some tone... :D
 
Interesting video that. I'm glad I'm not the only one that found CSB's comment confusing.
 
HoppyUK said:
Looks to me like he jogged the englarger when he made that print...
Click to expand...
He actually left them in the drying cabinet too long and the emulsion started to melt! Personally, I think it was a happy accident - they look good to me the way they are. Straight shots would have had less impact. Who need Photoshop!
 
Thanks for this post, I'm just about to buy a Sigma 18-200 os, I hope I will be pleased
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top