Testing IS / VR..... no images..
- Thread starter Trev Rich
- Start date
- Messages
- 11,513
- Name
- Stewart
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes. You should be able to see the difference quite clearly by zooming in on images taken with/without IS on the camera's LCD. If you're careful to take the same shot with/without IS, then you can zoom right in and flick from one image to the other and back again using the main control wheel.
But you have to get the shutter speed just right. Too fast, and both images will be sharp; too slow, and both will be blurred by camera shake. What speed is "just right" depends on the focal length and on your technique.
But you have to get the shutter speed just right. Too fast, and both images will be sharp; too slow, and both will be blurred by camera shake. What speed is "just right" depends on the focal length and on your technique.
- Messages
- 9,848
- Name
- Vlad
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Have a look here:
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=146479&highlight=sucks
Not that anyone of course will believe your results, even if the test is perfect.
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=146479&highlight=sucks
Not that anyone of course will believe your results, even if the test is perfect.
- Messages
- 931
- Name
- Maarten
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes with your test you should see a difference if the subject is static, i.e. not moving around.
Bob Atkins did a good article on this a while back that can give you some more ideas on what scenarios you could test:
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/is2.html
Bob Atkins did a good article on this a while back that can give you some more ideas on what scenarios you could test:
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/is2.html
- Messages
- 9,848
- Name
- Vlad
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well, it helps with hand holdability (normally which is judged by focal length vs shutter speed, common wisdom being that shutter speeds below the numerical value of the focal length start to introduce operator shake (eg 1/100th and 200mm)), normally thats to do with relatively slow shutter speeds caused by poor/indoor light levels.
It shouldn't affect portrait shots, but could do if you are talking using a 135mm in poor light.
I have to say though that its really aimed at making those less skilled in camera holding and those less able to understand the figures as to what will be a marginal shot able to get decent pictures in marginal light situations.
^^thats not "dis'ing" anyone, but thats why it was invented, to use technology to overcome lack of photography experience. Others would either be able to hand hold it, or set the camera up differently (increase the ISO, open the aperture up more, add some artificial light or use a tripod!)
It shouldn't affect portrait shots, but could do if you are talking using a 135mm in poor light.
I have to say though that its really aimed at making those less skilled in camera holding and those less able to understand the figures as to what will be a marginal shot able to get decent pictures in marginal light situations.
^^thats not "dis'ing" anyone, but thats why it was invented, to use technology to overcome lack of photography experience. Others would either be able to hand hold it, or set the camera up differently (increase the ISO, open the aperture up more, add some artificial light or use a tripod!)
- Messages
- 3,696
- Name
- Frank
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Or, a less cynical person may say, it was invented so that those who do have good technique and those that do understand the figures can use IS to shoot at even lower speeds than they would otherwise.
I see this a lot - people assuming that, just because I've got IS, I don't need to bother with good technique. They don't seem to realise that a combination of both is far better than either alone.
- Messages
- 1,349
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Canon 55-250mm IS lens.
At 250mm on a bottle.
With IS on
With IS off
At 250mm on a bottle.
With IS on
With IS off
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Hi Geof, I seem to remember explaining this (it's a complete misunderstanding) a couple of days ago
He should know better.
No idea. No drawbacks, apart sometimes from extra cost, but many lenses these days have IS/VR/OS etc for no apparent extra cost.
- Messages
- 9,848
- Name
- Vlad
- Edit My Images
- Yes
And the definite bokeh issue as aptly demonstrated on this very forum:
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=1969594&postcount=26
Of course, for most of us, that won't be an issue, but its definitely an issue!
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
I speak in jest, but yeah, yeah, whatever. We've done this topic to death already I saw that thread, and your post on it, which I ignored. So, you are saying that the slightly unusal background in that pic, taken on a 300 2.8 lens renowned for it's lovely bokeh, is an IS problem? Could it possibly be that it was just an unusual background? It's an outrageous thought I know :shrug:
This sounds like (yet another) of your increasingly desperate attempts to somehow undermine IS as one of the all time great technological advances ever
Bear in mind that the pic was taken with an effective focal length of 960mm when rule of thumb says the minimum shutter speed for hand holding would be 1/1000sec without IS. Yet Hollis used 1/30sec.
Your rather unhelpful suggestion on the thread was to increase ISO to get a hand holdable shutter speed. Right. That'll be the way forward then, let's turn it up from ISO800 to ISO25,600
Sure, bokeh is not going to be much an issue with the image that comes out of that 
When are you going to post some credible evidence for the nonsense you keep propagating?
So, you are saying that the slightly unusal background in that pic, taken on a 300 2.8 lens renowned for it's lovely bokeh, is an IS problem? Could it possibly be that it was just an unusual background? It's an outrageous thought I know :shrug:
This sounds like (yet another) of your increasingly desperate attempts to somehow undermine IS as one of the all time great technological advances ever
Bear in mind that the pic was taken with an effective focal length of 960mm when rule of thumb says the minimum shutter speed for hand holding would be 1/1000sec without IS. Yet Hollis used 1/30sec.
Your rather unhelpful suggestion on the thread was to increase ISO to get a hand holdable shutter speed. Right. That'll be the way forward then, let's turn it up from ISO800 to ISO25,600
When are you going to post some credible evidence for the nonsense you keep propagating?
Not that I'm agreeing either way but I can understand how IS 'might' alter bokeh.
I think I'm right in saying that IS works by a giro detecting movements (camera shake) and uses electro magnets to move one of the elements in the lens to correct those movements. So, in doing that it would be altering the angle of that element in comparison to the rest of the lens, including the aperture membrane, which possibly could alter the bokeh (VERY slightly).
Of course that could all be *******s!
- Messages
- 9,848
- Name
- Vlad
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No, I don't think so. I'd be happy to have someone test the theory though. Shoot a really long subject with and without IS and see the result - making sure of course you get some lovely bokeh in at least one shot...
The swirlyness in that bokeh is AFAIK the indicative effect of IS/VR on what should be creamy smooth blurry lovelyness.
This sounds like (yet another) of your increasingly desperate attempts to somehow undermine IS as one of the all time great technological advances ever
Actually its VR thats the target of my venom, I've always said I like Canon IS
(except for the bokeh issue)Your rather unhelpful suggestion on the thread was to increase ISO to get a hand holdable shutter speed. Right. That'll be the way forward then, let's turn it up from ISO800 to ISO25,600
I dunno, take a look at some of the newly posted D3s high ISO pics... perfectly possible.
But anyway, the suggestion was that he was suffering at 1/30th and had used IS in conjunction with good technique to nail that shot. Which could have been moderated by using a higher ISO which his 50D is supposed to be capable of, according to all the press I have read. So its a far from
suggestion
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Quite possibly
Of course, anything that has an influence on the optical path may affect the image so you could argue that with IS. But it certainly doesn't shift the diaphragm.
Nor does it have any significant effect on bokeh, certainly relative to all the many other things that affect bokeh, IS is the least of your worries.
If you look at all those lovely long primes that are so liked for the quality of their out of focus backgrounds, they all have IS... :shrug:
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
No, I don't think so. I'd be happy to have someone test the theory though. Shoot a really long subject with and without IS and see the result - making sure of course you get some lovely bokeh in at least one shot...
The swirlyness in that bokeh is AFAIK the indicative effect of IS/VR on what should be creamy smooth blurry lovelyness.
Actually its VR thats the target of my venom, I've always said I like Canon IS
I dunno, take a look at some of the newly posted D3s high ISO pics... perfectly possible.
But anyway, the suggestion was that he was suffering at 1/30th and had used IS in conjunction with good technique to nail that shot. Which could have been moderated by using a higher ISO which his 50D is supposed to be capable of, according to all the press I have read. So its a far from
Indeed. Altering something doesn't always mean having an adverse effect either, does it.
- Messages
- 9,848
- Name
- Vlad
- Edit My Images
- Yes