A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Image Stabilisation - why?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 6th 07, 03:50 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Skip
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,144
Default Image Stabilisation - why?


"Steve Cutchen" wrote in message
...
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.


One thing IS does in this case is compensate for unwanted vertical movement
when panning horizontally.

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


  #12  
Old January 6th 07, 03:53 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bruce Chastain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default Image Stabilisation - why?

"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?


A few examples. Hand held in a concert, stadium sports event, dim museum.

All are difficult to get in a fast enough f-stop / zoom combination, and a
tripod is not permitted in each case.

I've had IS for several months and absolutely love it.

Bruce.


  #13  
Old January 6th 07, 04:15 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill Hilton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 244
Default Image Stabilisation - why?

Jim wrote:

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.


I think I know the photographer you speak of, and what he was talking
about was fast predictive autofocus, not image stabilization ... the
example he gave was of photographing eagles in flight, IIRC.

Bill

  #14  
Old January 6th 07, 04:53 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
U-Know-Who
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 74
Default Image Stabilisation - why?


"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.


Shaky hands. And lack of propping objects.



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
  #15  
Old January 6th 07, 05:39 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
ray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,278
Default Image Stabilisation - why?

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 think the point might be "you don't have to work so hard at it".



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


  #16  
Old January 6th 07, 05:49 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Little Juice Coupe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 181
Default Image Stabilisation - why?

You would have to use it to understand. It is very useful for many types of
circumstances from people that have nerve disorders that can't hold
perfectly still to being able to hand hold a shot at 1/2 second and more.
Those that have used a stabilized lens or camera seldom go back without a
fight especially if they take the time to learn and understand the charm of
the system.

ljc


"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.




  #17  
Old January 6th 07, 08:25 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,272
Default Image Stabilisation - why?

On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 15:54:09 -0800, Justin C wrote
(in article justin.0612-69173C.23540905012007@stigmata):



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?


The point is that IS changes the rule of thumb that you have been using. The
lens speed now can be 1/4 of the focal length of the lens.

  #18  
Old January 6th 07, 08:29 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Chuck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default Image Stabilisation - why?


"Jim" wrote in message
t...

"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




A comparison with my old Oly OM-2 and a C8080
Effective film/ISO speed
OM-2 400-800 (When I was using it)
C8080 100 (for reasonable noise)

OM2 shutter speeds Usually 1/250 or faster (F2.8 lens)
C8080 Slower by 2-4x or so under same lighting
C8080 can become unusable in daylight with autofocus at full zoom and long
distance, requiring painful manual focus,
due to low resolution of LCDs in focus mode that uses a digital multiplier
in center of LCD.
For moving objects (racing cars) daylight, full zoom long distance
(infinity)
Focus manually and lock focus and exposure.
Now hand held is possible, with good results.
Without manual focus & lock, even tripod based was NG, due to auto focus
time & lock fail with moving subjects at long distance.

Next digital camera will be one with easy to use manual focus and zoom.
In my opinion, the automatic features can be useful, but also tend to
cripple the camera when they cannot be easily overidden



  #19  
Old January 6th 07, 08:37 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,272
Default Image Stabilisation - why?

On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 23:25:15 -0800, C J Campbell wrote
(in article m):

On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 15:54:09 -0800, Justin C wrote
(in article justin.0612-69173C.23540905012007@stigmata):



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?


The point is that IS changes the rule of thumb that you have been using. The
lens speed now can be 1/4 of the focal length of the lens.


Actually, it the improvement is four stops as some manufacturers claim (and
my experience is that these claims are, if anything, conservative) then the
1/500 shutter speed rule for a 450mm lens becomes 1/60. But it is actually
better than that, at least at medium telephoto range. Using either the
amateur 18-200mm VR Nikkor or the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR Nikkor you are
practically guaranteed getting a steady shot at 1/25 at 200mm. The thing is,
IS keeps functioning, so if you want to really push it down to, say, 1/8, you
have an excellent chance of getting an acceptable shot, whereas if you were
using the old rule of thumb with a non-stabilized lens you would only be
getting an improvement to 1/75 and even then with much less success.

So, yeah, you can get great pictures with a pinhole camera, but having a lens
makes things a lot easier, doesn't it? In the same way IS makes things easier
still.

  #20  
Old January 6th 07, 08:41 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
MarkČ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,185
Default Image Stabilisation - why?

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

"MarkČ" 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...


My next "big" (at least for me) will be a FAAAAAR larger ball head that will
TRULY lock a large, heavy set-up down at any angle. My current ball head is
inadequate without a proper vertical bracket (which I don't have)...not to
mention the simple circumference to literally STOP motion and creep...

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


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
image stabilisation ~ how does it work? MichaelM Digital Photography 56 June 26th 06 07:52 PM
Gyroscopic stabilisation Tom Hudson 35mm Photo Equipment 15 March 17th 05 06:32 AM
Image Restoration to improve image detail Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) Photographing Nature 24 January 17th 05 02:53 AM
Tool to right click image in windows explorer and rotate image right or left 90 degrees siliconpi Digital Photography 5 November 29th 04 01:56 PM
Image Stabilisation - How many extra f stops? zxcvar Digital Photography 133 October 9th 04 12:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.