image stabilization what's the verdict

C

CrippledSandwich

Messages
615
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
No
A lot of cameras seem to be without image stabilization , some have it built in and others where the (IM) is in the lenses that you buy. I was just wondering if its worth getting it at all and what other people opinions of Image Stabilization are?
 
Undoubtedly worth it. Make no mistake about it - it's a godsend.

Not sure about in lens IS as I have never used such a system, but the in-camera IS I use is awesome.
 
In-lens is more expensive to implement as you're paying for the mechanism with each lens rather than once with the body. It's a better system, however, as each implementation can be tailored specifically to the lens in question.
 
Vertigo1 said:
In-lens is more expensive to implement as you're paying for the mechanism with each lens rather than once with the body. It's a better system, however, as each implementation can be tailored specifically to the lens in question.
Click to expand...

Debatable...:thinking:

I'd also argue against the first point too, as many quality lenses for in-camera IS systems are really expensive - sometimes as expensive as the in-lens IS equivalents.

I have to say though, when I was recently in a hide on Skomer, there was a guy there with a Canon camera and a huge lens. Each time he went to take a shot, there was this considerably loud whirring sound, and a significant delay before he was able to take a shot as the IS kicked in. I am sure after using in-camera IS for so long, that I would find this a little disconcerting. IS in-camera is available instantly... no waiting, no noise either - important for the bird stuff I attempt!
 
There are really two types of movement for an IS system to attempt to resolve.
The first can be termed lateral jitter...where the body/lens combination is subjected to a sideways (or vertical) shift. This gives the worst degradation to the resultant image when the subject is close and the focal length short...typically macro and portrait type shots.
The second is rotational jitter where the objective element of the lens is moved and the resultant image degradation is more obvious on distant targets and long telepphoto lenses.

So which is the best solution...in-body or lens based?

For portraiture and macro then in-body IS will give the best results but lens based IS will win the battle for the super-telephoto's.

Bob

(John's mention of a delay whilst the IS spools up is countered by most long lens users by having the IS/focus operation selected on a button other than the shutter button.)
 
If you shoot at longer focal lengths (100+mm) handheld, IS/VR/OS/VC is a godsend, especially in lower light. Doesn't help when there's subject movement (sports and wildlife) but for static subjects, it's magic.

IMO, in lens VR has one major benefit over in body - you can see the effect through the viewfinder which makes tracking moving subjects a lot easier.

I've found that a 1/2 press on the shutter button as the camera's being raised to the eye gets the in lens stabilization up to speed as soon as it's to the eye.
 
Just don't depend on IS to the point where normal precautions against camera shake are ignored.
I see it as a safety net and not a tool.
 
neved used in body IS.
on my 40D though, 17-85 IS was nice, (although I didn't like what the glass did to buildings at 17mm)
on my 70-300 IS...it's so helpful at 300mm. wouldn't want to be without it.
 
neil_g said:
i dont think its essential, non of my lenses have it and so far ive never found myself craving it, even in gloomy forests shooting rallys..
Click to expand...


I agree with you on this. I have the D700 with the 24-70mm f2.8. This lens does not have vr so in low light I just up the iso.
 
Spent 30 odd years with film bodies and no IS.

Now digital and some lenses have it but do not see it as vital.

Handy on occasion but not always needed.
 
neil_g said:
i dont think its essential, non of my lenses have it and so far ive never found myself craving it, even in gloomy forests shooting rallys..
Click to expand...

I have to say I agree I was brought up on Film and the first thing you was taught was How to HOLD your camera you make a human tripod with your legs set right and arms elbows in tight to your side you can hold it good and still I have shot down to 1/15 on shorter lens no problem long lens say 200mm I have short at 1/60
Oh! and to hold your breath as you shoot.
 
Chaz Photos said:
I have to say I agree I was brought up on Film and the first thing you was taught was How to HOLD your camera you make a human tripod with your legs set right and arms elbows in tight to your side you can hold it good and still I have shot down to 1/15 on shorter lens no problem long lens say 200mm I have short at 1/60
Oh! and to hold your breath as you shoot.
Click to expand...

Holding your breath is a personal thing. Holding it for longer than a couple of seconds will introduce shake.

Professional marksmen fire either on the exhale or catch their breath for half a second on the exhale then fire. Try both and see which works for you.

IS won't help for a rally, it's designed to stop camera shake, not subject motion. It's ideal for some things, useless for others.
 
I suffer with essential tremors (I don't know why they call them essential) so IS has been a great help.
 
Blapto said:
Holding your breath is a personal thing. Holding it for longer than a couple of seconds will introduce shake.

Professional marksmen fire either on the exhale or catch their breath for half a second on the exhale then fire. Try both and see which works for you.

IS won't help for a rally, it's designed to stop camera shake, not subject motion. It's ideal for some things, useless for others.
Click to expand...

Yes I guess you said it better then me I was meaning the catch your breath for just the moment your shoot
 
I was shooting with my 50-150 non IS sigma this weekend and used my entire 'crooked' left arm as a rest whilst standing.

my g'f thought I was trying to a a posing photography ninja.
seemed to work though
is this right?? I forgot to attach my grip so could cradle the body against my shoulder properly.
 
I was just about to start a thread about IS but thought I'd ask in this one instead.

I'm looking to buy a new lens for my 400D and want IS. Both the lenses I'm considering have IS but only one has a 'panning-mode'.

As I do a fair bit of motorsport shooting I'm wondering how much of advantage panning-mode IS really is as I've noticed when panning that camera shake is less of a problem than when trying to hold the camera still, e.g. trying to keep the centre AF point in the viewfinder locked onto a point on the car shows that the 'drift' is smooth and seems more to do with not matching the speed and plane of the pan with the motion of the car.

Also, if I understand it correctly, panning-mode IS simply disables the horizontal IS which means that it only works for horizontal panning, e.g. motorsport, whereas photographing birds or aircraft in flight could mean you were panning horizontally, vertically, or anywhere inbetween so you would have to turn IS off anyway.

Have I understood this correctly and would the lack panning-mode IS be a great drawback (bearing in mind that neither of my existing lenses are IS anyway)?
 
Well i have been using the 17-85 mm IS lens for a couple of weeks now, and i have noticed a difference over a non IS lens. It is certainly worth it. I would imagine it would be more useful in longer lenses though
 
I would not buy another lens with out IS now.
 
None of my lenses have it - don't need it. I learned decent handholding technique years ago, which serves me well for what I shoot.

Having said that, I rarely shoot static subjects in low light, and generally motion blur from a subject is more of a problem where IS / VR is no use anyway.

I'm not Pro. or against.. it just strikes me as not that necessary in most shooting situations.
 
I manage fine without it.

Yes,I have had VR lenses in the past.
 
theMusicMan said:
Debatable...:thinking:
Click to expand...

No it's a well known fact, actually. At least this seems to be true for a longer lenses. Think of it as this - when say 300mm lens in a shaky hand gets moved a few mm at the lens base, due to the narrow angle of view the frame may move quite significantly. Having a stabilisation based in camera it may not be even possible to move sensor that far to compensate for it. On the other hand, lens-based stabilisation usually moves the entire optic assembly (including front element) and is perfectly capable to compensate this.

It's not that in-camera based IS systems are bad - they are just limited. The longer the lens the less effective they are...
 
I used it and it has its advantages - especially when having a faster glass or higher iso is not an option. Nowadays, I am leaning more towards having a faster glass (if I can) and less hurried use (again if I can control it) so I don't use it that much.

I do find though that there is a certain misconception that VR/IS is an ultimate panacea to all low-light problems and handshake - and it simply is not it. It does work and help up to certain point but it cannot do magic ;)
 
dalex_257 said:
No it's a well known fact, actually. At least this seems to be true for a longer lenses. Think of it as this - when say 300mm lens in a shaky hand gets moved a few mm at the lens base, due to the narrow angle of view the frame may move quite significantly. Having a stabilisation based in camera it may not be even possible to move sensor that far to compensate for it. On the other hand, lens-based stabilisation usually moves the entire optic assembly (including front element) and is perfectly capable to compensate this.

It's not that in-camera based IS systems are bad - they are just limited. The longer the lens the less effective they are...
Click to expand...
Hi Dalex - s'ok, I know you're not after a fight :)

I'd still say this was debatable though. The in-camera IS I have in my kit knows the focal length of the lens you have attached and compensates for whatever it is. Also, you can put any legacy lens on (I could theoretically put a Nikon/Canon lens on my camera with appropriate mount) and then tell the camera what the focal length of the lens is. So, with this system I guess there's something the camera does regarding focal length. It isn't just a system that is the same for every lens placed on the camera, it must do something different depending on the focal length (though I am not knowledgeable enough to know what this might be :) )

Also, I use the IS for all my shots, including ones at 500mm, and it works a treat. Honestly.
 
parish said:
I was just about to start a thread about IS but thought I'd ask in this one instead.

I'm looking to buy a new lens for my 400D and want IS. Both the lenses I'm considering have IS but only one has a 'panning-mode'.

As I do a fair bit of motorsport shooting I'm wondering how much of advantage panning-mode IS really is as I've noticed when panning that camera shake is less of a problem than when trying to hold the camera still, e.g. trying to keep the centre AF point in the viewfinder locked onto a point on the car shows that the 'drift' is smooth and seems more to do with not matching the speed and plane of the pan with the motion of the car.

Also, if I understand it correctly, panning-mode IS simply disables the horizontal IS which means that it only works for horizontal panning, e.g. motorsport, whereas photographing birds or aircraft in flight could mean you were panning horizontally, vertically, or anywhere inbetween so you would have to turn IS off anyway.

Have I understood this correctly and would the lack panning-mode IS be a great drawback (bearing in mind that neither of my existing lenses are IS anyway)?
Click to expand...


as I recall, the panning mode is only available in a longer lens. the 70-200 for example
my guess is that you're looking at the 17-85 and the 70-300 IS unless you're loaded.
the 17-85...I didn't like but IS did make things nice and sharp
the 70-300 IS is very usable, hugely useful and you're right about the panning mode disabling horizontal IS as far as I know.

for me there is a different between tracking and panning.
tracking a fast moving object...well the fastest shutter possible and make sure you don't fall over whilst aiming around the place.
on panning you'd be looking at 1/125s 1/250s perhaps and quite a steady movement.
 
Shake reduction rocks big time. I've got in-camera and for walking around in low light situations it saves having to set tripods up to get the shot.

As has already been stated in this thread, SR/VR/IS or whatever, is a help and is no substitute to good technique.
 
theMusicMan said:
Hi Dalex - s'ok, I know you're not after a fight :)

I'd still say this was debatable though.
...
Also, I use the IS for all my shots, including ones at 500mm, and it works a treat. Honestly.
Click to expand...

I was not saying it is bad or not working, I was merely pointing out that it is more constrained than in-lens one in respect of the amount of shake it can compensate for. Whether the difference worth to you, me or somebody else is of course debatable ;)

As I said, I personally prefer just to put on faster glass (if I can of course)
 
thanks for all the replies so far guys

iv have been trying out the IS feature on my fz8 taking pictures with and without and i think i have come to the conclution that its useful to have it inbiult as in the long run it will suit my budget better but i have noticed that some cameras (dslr) at the lower end dont have it so it has been intresting what all of you have said
 
DizMatt said:
as I recall, the panning mode is only available in a longer lens. the 70-200 for example
my guess is that you're looking at the 17-85 and the 70-300 IS unless you're loaded.
the 17-85...I didn't like but IS did make things nice and sharp
the 70-300 IS is very usable, hugely useful and you're right about the panning mode disabling horizontal IS as far as I know.

for me there is a different between tracking and panning.
tracking a fast moving object...well the fastest shutter possible and make sure you don't fall over whilst aiming around the place.
on panning you'd be looking at 1/125s 1/250s perhaps and quite a steady movement.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback.

The two lenses I'm considering aren't Canon ones but the Sigma 18-125mm f3.8-5.6 DC OS HSM and Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC LD

The former has paning mode IS, the latter - which of course is the longer lens - doesn't
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top