Image stabilisation when using a gimbal

footman

footman

Messages
4,695
Name
Laurence
Edit My Images
No
I can't seem to get definitive views on this. I can understand turning off the lens/body stabilisation when the combination is fixed on a tripod head but what about when on a gimbal that is not tightened down?
 
•


I leave it off!

I would consider using it if shooting from a gently moving
platform or hand held.

If your tripod is on a boat, or similar unstable situation, it
should not be automatically on as it will slow down focus
acquisition.
 
That's because there is no definitive answer... and some of it depends on what lens and version it has. My rule is to not use it unless I need it.

This is from the Nikon 400/2.8 VR manual:
  • Set the vibration reduction mode switch to “TRIPOD“ to reduce camera shake and image shake in the viewfinder while using a tripod. Very slight camera shake may fail to activate the vibration reduction system. Conversely, the VR system may cause camera shake in the lens. In this case, vibration reduction should be turned off. When using a tripod with an untightened head or a monopod, select NORMAL mode.
 
Canon recommend that it should be left on for their longer telephoto lenses as it reduces vibrations induced by mirror movement.

Bob
 
So many different opinions wherever you look!
Personally I (generally) now leave it on when using my 500 f4 below 1/800 and off when above 1/800 and it seems to work for me.
I do remember someone (possibly Thom Hogan) saying the VR 'Tripod' mode was only for a fixed tripod, so on a gimbal or mobile tripod head, 'Tripod' VR would be quite wrong ... according to him.
I think experiment and see what works for you ... with the proviso that it won't always prove to be true! :banghead:
 
Good rule of thumb, if you have a hand on the camera eg gimbal or monopod, then leave image stabilisation on.

I sometimes leave it on with a static tripod too, say a long lens in blustery conditions. Easy to check - switch to live view, max magnification, stabilisation off and you'll see the image moving around, sometimes dancing about quite a lot. Switch stabilisation on, and see if improves - very often it will.

The problem with stabilisation and a solid tripod is when there is no movement at all. This can promote a feedback loop in the system that introduces movements of its own.
 
Last edited:
The advice from Steve Perry-highly regarded wildlife photographer and author is just to leave it on when using a loose gimbal.He has tried it with stabilisation on and off and couldn't see any difference in the results.Useful at low shutter speeds and not detrimental at high shutter speeds.
 
Last edited:
Monkeyhanger said:
The advice from Steve Perry-highly regarded wildlife photographer and author is just to leave it on when using a loose gimbal.He has tried it with stabilisation on and off and couldn't see any difference in the results.Useful at low shutter speeds and not detrimental at high shutter speeds.
Click to expand...
Why leave it on if it's not helping? If you don't give it time to spool up it will most likely hurt IQ... and if nothing else it's just eating batteries.
 
He says it doesn't hurt image quality and slightly reduced battery life isn't something that would bother me,so just leave it on when using the gimbal
 
Monkeyhanger said:
The advice from Steve Perry-highly regarded wildlife photographer and author is just to leave it on when using a loose gimbal.He has tried it with stabilisation on and off and couldn't see any difference in the results.Useful at low shutter speeds and not detrimental at high shutter speeds.
Click to expand...
That isn't altogether his advice in his latest eBook 'Secrets to the Nikon Autofocus System' where he discusses VR causing image blur.
 
The problem is that it can be hard to tell when VR is the cause. The other day I was using a tripod, remote release, with VR in tripod mode and I was having issues... I *finally* realized I hadn't locked the tripod collar after rotating the lens.
 
Monkeyhanger said:
Having read this article I will have to rethink my long lens technique and try switching stabilisation off at higher shutter speeds
Click to expand...

I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from that article. It's an interesting attempt at a very difficult subject but falls seriously short on many points. It's on a tripod (!), at 1/250sec and longer, and compares just one lens from one manufacturer. If anything, it's more like a test of Nikon's tripod-sensing on that particular lens (from 2009) and that you need to let the system settle first (I thought that was obvious). Mansurov admits the article is a work in progress, but why is he testing at different lens apertures? That's an irrelevant variable that only confuses things, like the odd-ball results he's getting at 5.6 in the last set that contradict other findings.

The facts about image stabilisation are few, and basically just this: at longer shutter speeds it is incredibly effective when hand-holding, but its usefulness reduces as shutter speed increases. There will come a point (highly variable) when the benefits are non-existant, or according to some, may even be detrimental. It is that last question we need an answer to but Mansurov goes nowhere near answering it (I have a lot of respect for his work though).

It's an extremely difficult thing to test as you need to ensure that any reduction in sharpness is due to the stabilisation system and not to camera-shake or anything else. The only way to do that is to take hundreds of pictures, with and without stabilisation, at a range of shutter speeds (to address the system's sampling frequency - Thom Hogan's theory). Then compare and measure them all, draw up the average scores, and see if they tell you anything. Then do it all again with a different photographer, and again with a different lens, again with a different manufacturer. Thousands of images, weeks of work.

Other considerations are the beneficial effective image stabilisation has on the viewfinder image for better framing with very long lenses, and the theoretical assistance that a stabilised image gives to the AF system, though I've never seen this tested or proved.
 
Last edited:
Monkeyhanger said:
Having read this article I will have to rethink my long lens technique and try switching stabilisation off at higher shutter speeds
Click to expand...
I understand the science and theories behind why/when it would quit being beneficial, and even detrimental. And I am certain I have seen it adversely affect images, something Nikon even acknowledges. But the issue is, even if you did the testing Richard suggested it would be rather irrelevant because it will never be anywhere near 100% consistent.

My best suggestion is to use settings that eliminate the need/potential benefit of VR and turn it off... if you can't, or simply don't want to, then realize that you are taking a risk and at least some images will likely be degraded due to it. In that case, try using VR as it's probably not going to make things any worse, and it very well might help. But you do need to know what type of VR is implemented in that particular lens in order to choose which VR settings to select.


Edit: my opinion may well be biased by the fact that I have been shooting since long before digital and VR...
 
Last edited:
I know this thread is about image stabilisation, but I don't think that's the main issue with very long lenses.

The main problem is accurate focusing - that's what spoils the majority of images. I always have stabilisation on (with a monopod) because it makes nailing that AF point accurately so much easier. Some of the latest AF tracking systems that work in conjunction with metering sensors and subject-recognition, like Nikon's 3D tracking, make this a heck of a lot easier (y)
 
sk66 said:
I understand the science and theories behind why/when it would quit being beneficial, and even detrimental. And I am certain I have seen it adversely affect images, something Nikon even acknowledges. But the issue is, even if you did the testing Richard suggested it would be rather irrelevant because it will never be anywhere near 100% consistent.

My best suggestion is to use settings that eliminate the need/potential benefit of VR and turn it off... if you can't, or simply don't want to, then realize that you are taking a risk and at least some images will likely be degraded due to it. In that case, try using VR as it's probably not going to make things any worse, and it very well might help. But you do need to know what type of VR is implemented in that particular lens in order to choose which VR settings to select.


Edit: my opinion may well be biased by the fact that I have been shooting since long before digital and VR...
Click to expand...

Does Nikon acknowledge VR can cause issues? What kind of issues, eg not letting the system settle first, or something else? Do you have any reference for that? Just interested ;)

And in the unlikely event that some brave person actually does a thorough test job and concludes there is a potential problem in some situations, then as you say, different people with different lenses and stabilisation systems will find differently. And also, any problems will likely only apply to part of the frame at fast shutter speeds, when an errant shift of the stabilisation system happens to coincide with the shutter at a certain point in its travel. It's a total minefield, but very ripe for someone looking for a problem to do a few crude tests and start a scare story to drive traffic... ;)
 
HoppyUK said:
Does Nikon acknowledge VR can cause issues? What kind of issues, eg not letting the system settle first, or something else? Do you have any reference for that? Just interested ;)
Click to expand...
See post #4 where I quoted from the Nikon 400/2.8 VR manual regarding tripod use.

The first note about VR in the manual is to let the image stabilize before releasing the shutter.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
The first note about VR in the manual is to let the image stabilize before releasing the shutter.
Click to expand...
And this from a company who used to make a virtue out of *not* letting the image stabilize. The first-generation 80-400mm had a bizarre "Mode 2" on the VR system which didn't start to spin up until you took the shot. It was a complete waste of space, though I guess it might have sounded clever at the time. And I love the way Nikon tried to rationalise it - "designed for those who feel uncomfortable with compensated viewfinder images". Yeah, right. I'm sure there must be loads of people out there who prefer a bit of visible shake. To be fair though, it was one of Nikon's first VR lenses and they probably hadn't worked out the practicalities.
 
sk66 said:
See post #4 where I quoted from the Nikon 400/2.8 VR manual regarding tripod use.

The first note about VR in the manual is to let the image stabilize before releasing the shutter.
Click to expand...

Okay, thanks, but nothing new there :)
 
StewartR said:
And this from a company who used to make a virtue out of *not* letting the image stabilize. The first-generation 80-400mm had a bizarre "Mode 2" on the VR system which didn't start to spin up until you took the shot. It was a complete waste of space, though I guess it might have sounded clever at the time. And I love the way Nikon tried to rationalise it - "designed for those who feel uncomfortable with compensated viewfinder images". Yeah, right. I'm sure there must be loads of people out there who prefer a bit of visible shake. To be fair though, it was one of Nikon's first VR lenses and they probably hadn't worked out the practicalities.
Click to expand...

Quite a few Canon super-teles have Mode 3 image stabilisation that only works during the moment of exposure.

This is what Chuck Westfall (Canon USA tech guru) has to say about it: "This new stabilization mode is similar to IS Mode 2 in the respect that it can detect and correct for panning by shutting off IS correction in the panning direction, but the difference is that IS correction occurs only during the actual exposure in IS Mode 3. (As in IS Modes 1 and 2, camera shake and panning detection occurs whenever the shutter button is pressed halfway.) As a result, the image in the viewfinder moves more naturally while panning, and battery power is conserved. This feature is expected to be welcomed by sports photographers as well as those who photograph birds in flight."

There's more too, along the same lines as Bob's comment above re tripod use: "Unlike many other IS lenses that essentially shut off the IS function automatically when tripod use is detected, the new IS II super-telephoto lenses automatically compensate for subtle camera vibrations at shutter speeds from 1/30th to 1 second. Therefore, it is unnecessary to shut off IS during tripod use. This feature will be particularly welcomed by nature and landscape photographers who often use tripods for field work, and who also often use relatively slow shutter speeds. (The IS mechanism is automatically disabled when tripod use is detected and the shutter speed is longer than 1 second.)"

The full article is here: http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/updates_supertelephoto_article.shtml
 
StewartR said:
And this from a company who used to make a virtue out of *not* letting the image stabilize. The first-generation 80-400mm had a bizarre "Mode 2" on the VR system which didn't start to spin up until you took the shot. It was a complete waste of space, though I guess it might have sounded clever at the time. And I love the way Nikon tried to rationalise it - "designed for those who feel uncomfortable with compensated viewfinder images". Yeah, right. I'm sure there must be loads of people out there who prefer a bit of visible shake. To be fair though, it was one of Nikon's first VR lenses and they probably hadn't worked out the practicalities.
Click to expand...
I've found Nikon to be particularly bad (or vague/incomplete) when they explain how certain things work... But TBF, most of my experience is with Nikon; the others are probably just as bad.
 
Just my experience!

I would suggest that when the lens is unboxed the IS/VR/OS etc is turned off and left there until you sell the lens - though do check it still works before you sell it!

As you might have guessed I am not a fan of IS (or it's alternatives from other manufacturers) as it has cost me far too many shots in the past. For a while I did still use IS when struggling but haven't used IS in over 3 years and my photography is better for it.

For reference my primary (80% + of my photography) is the Canon 800 F5.6 L IS which is used hand held, leaned on/against something, on a mono pod and on a tripod with a Gimbal - in all cases IS is off. When I first had this lens I did try the IS on it as it was supposed to be much more advanced than the IS on my previous 600 F4 L IS - well it was better but still more trouble than it's worth.

To the OP: just turn IS off and forget abut it. If you are using a Gimbal head then you probably need to acquire subjects very quickly and/or track moving subjects - IS slows AF and interferes with tracking performance, try it for yourself and you will see this very quickly.

All the best and happy snapping!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top