Beginner how important is optical stabilisation in macro work

iwols

iwols

Messages
872
Edit My Images
Yes
hi all just been trying a bit of macro,but seem to be doing it mainly handheld (bugs in garden)and because of the nature of the beast was just wondering how important image stabilisation is for tmacro work,any comments appreciated guys thanks
 
iwols said:
hi all just been trying a bit of macro,but seem to be doing it mainly handheld (bugs in garden)and because of the nature of the beast was just wondering how important image stabilisation is for tmacro work,any comments appreciated guys thanks
Click to expand...

Very important, if you're hand-holding and not using flash. Camera-shake is magnified in macro and is a major problem at 1:1. Image stabilisation is not so effective at macro distances as normal range, but you'll still get one or two stops of shake reduction, and that's where the most benefit is to be had. Eg, for ease of maths, let's say you have 8mm of blur on the subject without image stabilisation, with one stop that's reduced to 4mm, and two stops takes it down to 2mm, so 6mm total reduction in movement. The next two stops that you might get at longer shooting distances, would only take the movement down to 1mm and 0.5mm, 1.5mm total.

Canon's hybrid image stabilisation in the 10/2.8 L macro is better than most at macro range. Image stabilisation also makes framing and focusing easier.
 
HoppyUK said:
Very important, if you're hand-holding and not using flash. Camera-shake is magnified in macro and is a major problem at 1:1. Image stabilisation is not so effective at macro distances as normal range, but you'll still get one or two stops of shake reduction, and that's where the most benefit is to be had. Eg, for ease of maths, let's say you have 8mm of blur on the subject without image stabilisation, with one stop that's reduced to 4mm, and two stops takes it down to 2mm, so 6mm total reduction in movement. The next two stops that you might get at longer shooting distances, would only take the movement down to 1mm and 0.5mm, 1.5mm total.

Canon's hybrid image stabilisation in the 10/2.8 L macro is better than most at macro range. Image stabilisation also makes framing and focusing easier.
Click to expand...
Just to add to that, if you ARE using flash, then the majority of light tends to be from the flash rather than ambient (certainly on your subject) so the requirement for optical stabilisation becomes much less, and usually won't make any difference. The flash duration is so short (much shorter than your shutter speed) that the effects of optical stabilisation become insignificant. Furthermore, as hinted above, the impact of current optical stabilisation technologies reduces as magnification goes up, so from around 2-3X magnification up, it again becomes irrelevant. With most things in macro, it's really a case of what you are shooting and how you are shooting (and there are a lot of possibilities available). It may be why IS is included on Canon's longer focal length macro lenses (which tend to be used in natural light) compared to the MP-E for example (which is shorter focal length, higher magnification an tends to be used with flash).

Watch Canon announce the MP-E 65mm F2.8 IS II now just to spite me...
 
iwols said:
hi all just been trying a bit of macro,but seem to be doing it mainly handheld (bugs in garden)and because of the nature of the beast was just wondering how important image stabilisation is for tmacro work,any comments appreciated guys thanks
Click to expand...

A friend of mine inverted his tripod top so the camera was fitted upside down and the legs straddled the subject if that helps. Not all tripods allow this of course.

A stud in the bottom of the stem may allow the head to be reversed. Just a thought........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top