Image Stabilisation - why?

(Also posted to uk.rec.photo.misc, sorry to those who follow both NGs, I
intended to post it here but had the wrong NG selected when I posted).

I keep reading about IS in modern cameras and lenses and people seem to
go on about it as if it's essential. It's not in any camera I have and
it was never in any camera I've ever had.

I've managed to get perfectly good and sharp shots over the years,
hand-held with 450mm lenses. The rule of thumb was that to avoid lens
movement ruining a shot you the shutter speed in fractions of a second
must be at least the length of lens used. So, if you're shooting wide
open in low light with a 50mm lens you can get away with 1/60th sec. But
if you're shooting on a sunny day, but in the woods, with a 450mm you
need 1/500 sec. You know there is a risk of shake so you're careful, if
you can use a tripod you do, if not then a monopod, or a bean bag, or
rest the lens on a branch, or lean against a tree. With a little care
you can get that speed down without needing a tripod.

Just what is the big deal with IS? Have I missed the point? Weren't most
of the best photo's in the world shot without it?

I'm not looking to start a flame war and this is not a troll.

--
Justin C, by the sea.

Justin C wrote:
(Also posted to uk.rec.photo.misc, sorry to those who follow both
NGs, I intended to post it here but had the wrong NG selected when I
posted).

I keep reading about IS in modern cameras and lenses and people seem
to go on about it as if it's essential. It's not in any camera I have
and it was never in any camera I've ever had.

Ah! So you're speaking from experience with IS, then, aye??


I've managed to get perfectly good and sharp shots over the years,
hand-held with 450mm lenses. The rule of thumb was that to avoid lens
movement ruining a shot you the shutter speed in fractions of a second
must be at least the length of lens used. So, if you're shooting wide
open in low light with a 50mm lens you can get away with 1/60th sec.

Yes. We're well aware of those guidelines.
But...what if there was a technology available that...without introducing
noise due to higher ISO...would allow you to shoot WELL BELOW that
threshhold with excellent results?
That would be pretty useful, wouldn't it?
Well that is exactly what IS does...

But if you're shooting on a sunny day, but in the woods, with a 450mm
you need 1/500 sec. You know there is a risk of shake so you're
careful, if you can use a tripod you do, if not then a monopod, or a
bean bag, or rest the lens on a branch, or lean against a tree. With
a little care you can get that speed down without needing a tripod.

Just what is the big deal with IS? Have I missed the point?

Yes.

Weren't
most of the best photo's in the world shot without it?

I'm not looking to start a flame war and this is not a troll.

You're not a troll at all. You're just speaking from your
experience...which doesn't happen to include any with IS lenses. There's no
doubt that great shots are available without IS. But in those instances
where you don't have enough light to use the "guideline"
shutter-to-extension number...it's nice to be able to shoot with 2 to 8
times less shutter speed and still get the same result hand-held.

IS's only limitation is, of course that it can't deal with subject motion,
although IS lenses with panning modes work extremely well.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 23:54:09 +0000, Justin C
wrote:

(Also posted to uk.rec.photo.misc, sorry to those who follow both NGs, I
intended to post it here but had the wrong NG selected when I posted).

I keep reading about IS in modern cameras and lenses and people seem to
go on about it as if it's essential. It's not in any camera I have and
it was never in any camera I've ever had.

I've managed to get perfectly good and sharp shots over the years,
hand-held with 450mm lenses. The rule of thumb was that to avoid lens
movement ruining a shot you the shutter speed in fractions of a second
must be at least the length of lens used. So, if you're shooting wide
open in low light with a 50mm lens you can get away with 1/60th sec. But
if you're shooting on a sunny day, but in the woods, with a 450mm you
need 1/500 sec. You know there is a risk of shake so you're careful, if
you can use a tripod you do, if not then a monopod, or a bean bag, or
rest the lens on a branch, or lean against a tree. With a little care
you can get that speed down without needing a tripod.

Just what is the big deal with IS? Have I missed the point? Weren't most
of the best photo's in the world shot without it?

I'm not looking to start a flame war and this is not a troll.


When I was younger I used to be able to cheat that 1/mm rule by about
a stop, now I'm older and have to give it a stop.

Running out of light because it's too dark or because I want to use a
higher /f stop is common, IS would help me in those cases.

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:

IS's only limitation is, of course that it can't deal with subject motion,
although IS lenses with panning modes work extremely well.

If you are using IS to shoot at 1/100 when you'd need 1/500 to get a sharp
image, you still have a lot of subject stopping potential.

I'd like to see some solid tripod vs. IS comparisons, though. (The problem
with that, though, is that most people don't own a tripod capable of holding
a 300mm lens adequately still for 1/100 second.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 23:54:09 +0000, Justin C wrote:
(Also posted to uk.rec.photo.misc, sorry to those who follow both NGs, I
intended to post it here but had the wrong NG selected when I posted).

I keep reading about IS in modern cameras and lenses and people seem to
go on about it as if it's essential. It's not in any camera I have and
it was never in any camera I've ever had.

I've managed to get perfectly good and sharp shots over the years,
hand-held with 450mm lenses. The rule of thumb was that to avoid lens
movement ruining a shot you the shutter speed in fractions of a second
must be at least the length of lens used. So, if you're shooting wide
open in low light with a 50mm lens you can get away with 1/60th sec. But
if you're shooting on a sunny day, but in the woods, with a 450mm you
need 1/500 sec. You know there is a risk of shake so you're careful, if
you can use a tripod you do, if not then a monopod, or a bean bag, or
rest the lens on a branch, or lean against a tree. With a little care
you can get that speed down without needing a tripod.

Just what is the big deal with IS? Have I missed the point? Weren't most
of the best photo's in the world shot without it?

With IS, you can hand-hold and shoot at 400mm at 1/40s.

Sometimes, that's useful. Sometimes not.

-dms

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:

IS's only limitation is, of course that it can't deal with subject
motion, although IS lenses with panning modes work extremely well.

If you are using IS to shoot at 1/100 when you'd need 1/500 to get a sharp
image, you still have a lot of subject stopping potential.

I'd like to see some solid tripod vs. IS comparisons, though. (The problem
with that, though, is that most people don't own a tripod capable of
holding a 300mm lens adequately still for 1/100 second.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


One of these days, if I ever get one of those mythical "spare times" I'm
really going to try that. I have a monster Bogen/Manfrotto 3236 (similar to
the current 3258) that should hold a big lens still. If I'm feeling kinda
flush at the same time as that "spare time" I might even rent a 600 f4 IS
and see what a REALLY big lens will do with IS...

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

"Justin C" wrote in message
news:justin.0612-69173C.23540905012007@stigmata...
(Also posted to uk.rec.photo.misc, sorry to those who follow both NGs, I
intended to post it here but had the wrong NG selected when I posted).

I keep reading about IS in modern cameras and lenses and people seem to
go on about it as if it's essential. It's not in any camera I have and
it was never in any camera I've ever had.

I've managed to get perfectly good and sharp shots over the years,
hand-held with 450mm lenses. The rule of thumb was that to avoid lens
movement ruining a shot you the shutter speed in fractions of a second
must be at least the length of lens used. So, if you're shooting wide
open in low light with a 50mm lens you can get away with 1/60th sec. But
if you're shooting on a sunny day, but in the woods, with a 450mm you
need 1/500 sec. You know there is a risk of shake so you're careful, if
you can use a tripod you do, if not then a monopod, or a bean bag, or
rest the lens on a branch, or lean against a tree. With a little care
you can get that speed down without needing a tripod.

Just what is the big deal with IS? Have I missed the point? Weren't most
of the best photo's in the world shot without it?

I'm not looking to start a flame war and this is not a troll.

--
Justin C, by the sea.
A very good professional nature photographer once remarked that, before IS,
he was lucky to get one good shot per roll of birds in flight. With IS, the
ratio has now improved to almost all of the shots. Most of my shots are of
more stationary target so I would not expect such a dramatic improvement in
my photography.

One example where I could certainly have used help happened in Canada. I
was trying to photograph an elk, and I was hand holding an F3 with a 300mm
f4 lens. According to the usual technique, I should have set the shutter to
1/300, but the light was low, and I really needed 1/300 at f2.8. So, I took
the shot anyway, and it isn't too bad (well, it is a little dark). With IS,
I could have set the shutter and lens for the light and never given the
problem another thought.
Jim

In article , Jim
wrote:

"Justin C" wrote in message
news:justin.0612-69173C.23540905012007@stigmata...
(Also posted to uk.rec.photo.misc, sorry to those who follow both NGs, I
intended to post it here but had the wrong NG selected when I posted).

I keep reading about IS in modern cameras and lenses and people seem to
go on about it as if it's essential. It's not in any camera I have and
it was never in any camera I've ever had.

I've managed to get perfectly good and sharp shots over the years,
hand-held with 450mm lenses. The rule of thumb was that to avoid lens
movement ruining a shot you the shutter speed in fractions of a second
must be at least the length of lens used. So, if you're shooting wide
open in low light with a 50mm lens you can get away with 1/60th sec. But
if you're shooting on a sunny day, but in the woods, with a 450mm you
need 1/500 sec. You know there is a risk of shake so you're careful, if
you can use a tripod you do, if not then a monopod, or a bean bag, or
rest the lens on a branch, or lean against a tree. With a little care
you can get that speed down without needing a tripod.

Just what is the big deal with IS? Have I missed the point? Weren't most
of the best photo's in the world shot without it?

I'm not looking to start a flame war and this is not a troll.

--
Justin C, by the sea.
A very good professional nature photographer once remarked that, before IS,
he was lucky to get one good shot per roll of birds in flight. With IS, the
ratio has now improved to almost all of the shots. Most of my shots are of
more stationary target so I would not expect such a dramatic improvement in
my photography.

This sounds like just the opposite...

If you have a stationary target, IS will let you slow down the shutter
and still hand hold. The movement you are compensating for is you.

But if you have a fast moving target and need to freeze action, you
still have to shoot the higher shutter speed, IS or not, and so are
already fast enough to hand hold. The movement you need to compensate
for is the subject.

Justin C wrote:

I keep reading about IS in modern cameras and lenses and people seem to
go on about it as if it's essential. It's not in any camera I have and
it was never in any camera I've ever had.

I've managed to get perfectly good and sharp shots over the years,
hand-held with 450mm lenses. The rule of thumb was that to avoid lens
movement ruining a shot you the shutter speed in fractions of a second
must be at least the length of lens used. So, if you're shooting wide
open in low light with a 50mm lens you can get away with 1/60th sec. But
if you're shooting on a sunny day, but in the woods, with a 450mm you
need 1/500 sec. You know there is a risk of shake so you're careful, if
you can use a tripod you do, if not then a monopod, or a bean bag, or
rest the lens on a branch, or lean against a tree. With a little care
you can get that speed down without needing a tripod.

Just what is the big deal with IS? Have I missed the point? Weren't most
of the best photo's in the world shot without it?

I've been running some tests comparing IS-on to IS-off and also testing
to see at what shutter speeds a slightly inferior lens like the 100-400
IS is better hand-held than a 400 f/5.6 L without IS ... maybe the
methodology I came up with is of interest to some as I struggled to put
a numeric value to make the comparisons clearer.

To show some results first, here are screen dumps of center-crops of 10
hand-held frames from the 24-105 f/4 shot at 105 mm at 1/13th second,
one with IS-on and the other with IS-off ...

http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/te...IS-off_f18.jpg
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/te..._IS-on_f18.jpg

I assigned 'scores' of 8.4 and 4.4 to them based on the average of 10
shots (3.0 is the best this lens did on a pod using MLU and a 10 sec
delay, 10.0 means all are unreadable). This was based on using Roger
Clark's test pattern and shooting at 10.5 ft ... the pattern can be
downloaded here ... I used Roger's 'px' value on the black W to assign
the numbers, as best as I could judge.

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...ess/index.html

With a Rebel XTi and this lens the results for IS-on and IS-off are
almost identical at shutter speeds of 1/400th and 1/200th sec (with the
1.6x the reciprocal-focal length suggests ~ 1/170 th sec for the
'should be OK' speed) but at slower speeds the IS shots are
increasingly better. For example at 1/400th I get 3.3 or 3.2 for both
but at 1/50th sec it's 3.7 (IS-on) and 7.0 (IS-off).

It also seems to uphold the "3 stops better" rule since the IS-on
frames at 1/13th sec were a bit better than the IS-off frames at
1/100th sec (4.4 vs 5.0).

These are 280 x 220 pixel crops from the center of a 3,888 x 2,592
pixel image.

For the 400 mm tests I got better results with the 400 f/5.6 L at
1/2,000th and 1/1,000th sec (because the lens quality is better) but by
1/500th sec the 100-400 with IS was slightly better, and increasingly
better as I lowered the shutter speed. For this older lens the "2
stops better" indicated by Canon also seems to hold up.

If I had more time I'd post some of these results for other lenses I've
been testing, which were pretty interesting for several reasons, but
I'm kinda busy right now ... but since this IS Q came up and I had this
data handy I thought I'd toss it out there.

So Justin, all I'd say is that IS is great below certain slow shutter
speeds and irrelevant above certain higher shutter speeds. If the
shutter speed is TOO slow even IS won't save you, and for higher speeds
it's of no value.

Bill

"Justin C" wrote in message
news:justin.0612-69173C.23540905012007@stigmata...

Just what is the big deal with IS? Have I missed the point? Weren't most
of the best photo's in the world shot without it?

I used to submit my advertising in four film negatives, one each for C, M,
Y, and K. The process of creating the advertisement in a suitable form to
generate those film negatives was equally cumbersome.

I now design, layout, and proof my advertising on my monitor, then generate
a high-quality PDF that is either emailed or uploaded to the printer. I had
great results from the old film negs, and I get great results now from PDF.
The difference is, I now get more "consistent" results.

I have cameras and lenses without IS, cameras and lenses with it. As a rank
amateur, I wish that EVERY piece of equipment had IS. And the first time I
experienced it, it was a marvel to me.

Image stabilization is another tool in your camera bag, one which helps you
get more out of less. Why would you NOT want it?

dwight