Image Stabilisation - why?

Steve Cutchen wrote:
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.

No. Not in this particular case...because he's referring to PANNING. *NOT*
the still-holding of teh camera, but PANNING...which IS is extremely helpful
in.

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.

Only if he's holding still as the bird flies through his shot...which is
rarely how you'd capture a bird in flight.
Try it sometime. This is a panning issue, which IS has a huge positive
effect on.

-Mark²

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

dwight wrote:
"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?

The answer to that is a simple one, IMO.
=Lack of experience with IS, which is *precisely* what the OP indicates as
his history.

That kind of criticism is understandable (and IMO *only* understandable)
when one hasn't seen it first hand.
IS isn't a miracle, but it is arguably the biggest step in lens technology
in at LEAST the last10 years, or perhaps even more (pre-dating it's
existence, which started in about '96 or so).
--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

This is why I like it.
http://www.poseruniverse.net/Photogr...n_1600_IS.html

Richard



"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.
Cut
--
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.

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.

The benefit is in latitude. Wider aperture and shutter speed ranges.
Look at it as a 'faster lens', which is about the effect achieved. Now
wouldn't you rather have a faster lens?

Why not a three way head Mark?

--
Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
...
:
: 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 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?

Until an innovation has actually been introduced and put in service, _all_
the "best photos in the world" (and the average ones and the really bad
ones as well) were shot without it. The question is not whether one can
take good photos without it, the question is whether one can take _more_
good ones _with_ it, or take the same good ones one was going to take
anyway with greater convenience.

At one time most of the best photos had been taken without a dry, storable
emulsion, color film, a shutter, a viewfinder, a hand-holdable camera, etc.
If what had been used to take "most of the best photos" was the criterion
for acceptance of an innovation we'd still be preoparing emulsions on
site with cameras that took two men and a boy to carry and required
exposures so long that the movement of rocks was an issue.

Is it "essential"? In the sense that one will die if one lacks it, no
it is not "essential"--neither is a camera for that matter unless it is
your means of livelhood. Does it make life a whole lot easier sometimes?
Yes, it does.

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

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article ,
says...

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.

Exactly.. Or in my case probably two..

T.
--
Do Binary Tripods have 11 legs ?

David J. Littleboy wrote:

I'd like to see some solid tripod vs. IS comparisons, though.

I did this with the tests I described below, after noticing that
sometimes at higher shutter speeds the images got worse, which I
tracked down to shooting at the smallest apertures as the shutter got
faster. (So after this I limited the apertures to the 'sweet spot'
range by changing the ISO values as I shot at different shutter
speeds).

(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.)

Any decent tripod can do this (if there is no wind or external
vibration) if you use MLU with a 10 second delay and use an electronic
shutter release (instead of pushing the shutter button with your
finger).

I found the 2 sec delay wasn't enough (still getting some vibrations
from the mirror slap) but 6 sec was plenty with the lenses I used, up
to 500 mm and 1/20th sec).

Bill

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.

Well, you could have fooled me.
Dave Cohen

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?

Sure they were -- it's a recent technology, and fine photos have been
building up for years.

You can say the same thing about fast lenses (who really *needs* a 400
f/2.8? Can't you just use faster film?), long lenses (what's the point
of a 600mm lens? Why not just get closer?), fast films (just use ASA
100 and expose longer; and you'll get finer grain to boot!), and so forth.

IS gives you more options in some situations. Hand-holding with IS is
easier to make quick adjustments to than solid mounting on a tripod, so
you can adapt to subject movement and and get photos that you'd mostly
miss using solider mounting techniques.

Whether it would result in significantly better pictures for your
particular work, I can't say at least twice; I don't know your work, and
*I've* never owned an IS lens either.