Image Stabilisation - why?

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"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.)

I haven't tested to see if my Bogen 3051 is actually up to that or not.
And I almost *never* bother to haul that monster out for 35mm work; I
use it for the 4x5. So even people who *might* own such a tripod rarely
*use* it :-).

"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
ups.com...
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

Yes, you are correct. I can't remember his name, but I would not identify
him in any case.
AF has certainly helped those folks. IS seems to help people who do a lot
of hand held panning though.
Jim

Bill Hilton wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:

(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).

Too bad no camera I've owned in 38 years of semi-serious photography
(i.e. I'm not counting my Pixie 127 or even my mother's old Bolsey 35, I
don't start the clock until I got my first SLR) has had MLU. Hmmm;
well, one does, I've now got an old Nikon F, more as a museum piece
(though I've run one roll through it and it does work) than as a "user"
in my lineup. I guess if I'd been buying many super-telephoto lenses
and doing things that *could* be done with MLU, I might have had to buy
different bodies too.

Tony Gartshore wrote:
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..

Ouch! I think I've been getting better as I age; then again, part of
what that means is that I rarely actually just stand up and hold the
camera, there's always *something* to lean on, push against, or whatever.

dwight wrote:

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.

Doesn't the Canon IS (and Nikon VR) system put additional air-glass
interfaces in the light path? So it probably has some impact on how
prone a lens is to flare, and all those other issues. I've seen people
recommending the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 in preference to the newer (forget
the *exact* focal lengths) VR equivalent for that reason (for
applications where the VR wasn't a big win, at least).

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

Because it has costs -- money, battery life, possibly lens lifespan?,
possibly some image-quality issues. If it were completely *free*, then
it's a no-brainer.

(Note that the sensor-shifting based IS used by some other companies
avoids the extra air-glass interface problems.)

Joan wrote:
Why not a three way head Mark?

I've had and used one for years, but I find it cumbersome at best.



"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

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

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 07:38:54 -0800, Bill Hilton wrote:

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).

The thing about a tripod is that you have to do something to use it. If
the shot is transient and you weren't already set up you're going to miss
it if you rely on a tripod as your stabilization device.
IS can be left on by default and you get the shot.

It's not a competition. If circumstances allow a stable mount of some
kind then use one. If they don't, then without IS, unless you're going
for motion blur you're going to get fewer usable images than you will with
it.

Bill

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

In article justin.0612-69173C.23540905012007@stigmata, justin.0612
@purestblue.com says...
(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.

snip

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?

Got along fine without digital until a few years ago .... Weren't all
the good photos shot on film? Got along without 35mm 50 years ago.

Now that I really think back, weren't all the best photos shot on glass
plates 100 years ago?

In article , Irwin
Peckinloomer wrote:

In article justin.0612-69173C.23540905012007@stigmata, justin.0612
@purestblue.com says...
(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.

snip

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?

Got along fine without digital until a few years ago .... Weren't all
the good photos shot on film? Got along without 35mm 50 years ago.

Now that I really think back, weren't all the best photos shot on glass
plates 100 years ago?

Paint says "hi!"

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

Too bad no camera I've owned in 38 years of semi-serious photography
(i.e. I'm not counting my Pixie 127 or even my mother's old Bolsey 35, I
don't start the clock until I got my first SLR) has had MLU.

Do you have a dSLR? Even the cheapest entry level Canon digital Rebel
has MLU so I'm surprised other brands do not offer this ... I've never
owned a 35 mm or dSLR body that did NOT have MLU (quick count says 2
manual focus Minoltas, 2 Canon film bodies, three Canon digital
bodies), though none of my medium format cameras have it.

I guess if I'd been buying many super-telephoto lenses
and doing things that *could* be done with MLU, I might have had to
buy different bodies too.

I've never used MLU with the long lenses (except as a test case to
determine the highest resolution a lens can obtain) except maybe for
those test shots of the moon. I use mirror lockup mostly with macro
shots and with landscape shots. I'm pretty sure this is the norm.

Bill