Image Stabilisation - why?

Justin C wrote:

I think yours, David, was the only negative post on the subject. I'm
grateful that you've brought some negatives to light for me.

So 50 positive posts and one negative one and you latch on to the
negative one Sounds like you already had your mind made up going in
that you weren't going to like it ...

... it wasn't obvious (to me at least) that this would reduce
battery life - but thinking about it now, can you image what a drain
that'd be holding the shutter half-pressed waiting for the moment

So how much do you think it reduces battery life? Would you believe
'very little'?

Someone hooked up a watt-meter to a Canon 10D and measured the power
consumption for various situations ... the display took a lot of power
and auto-focus took a lot of power but IS consumed very little ... the
numbers given for different situations were these, with a 500 f4 L IS
lens (one of the 3 largest IS lenses, so presumably one that would
require a lot more power than shorter lenses):

0 mA off
98 mA idle (presumably with power on and no display)
388mA (no shutter button contact) presumably with the display on
406mA (shutter half-press; exposuring ongoing)
421mA IS only (no autofocus)
665mA AF only (no IS)
672mA IS + AF with shutter half-pressed

So less than 5% extra current with IS alone, and about 1% extra current
with AF. The actual number of shots I get off any given battery varies
much more than that based on the operating temperature or by how many
days it takes me to run down the battery (shooting more frames per day
gives more frames per battery) so I don't even notice or worry about
the effects of IS on battery life.

Interesting suggestion regarding the lens lifespan too, I
suppose with more moving parts there's more to go wrong.

Actually you may be on to something here ... my 500 f/4 L IS had a
problem with the IS causing the image to vibrate and blur when the
camera was pointed down at about 30 degrees or more, fixed out of
warranty by Canon (replacing the IS unit) for $180, and my 70-200 f/2.8
L IS also had problems, getting the Err-01 (no connection) when IS was
on ... this lens was still in warranty and fixed for free by Canon,
again with a replacement of the IS circuit board. So two fails with IS
lenses for me, which is a bit disconcerting.

Bill

Justin C wrote:
[]
My original reaction to the idea of IS/VR (what does VR stand for
BTW?) was that the likes of Canon and Nikon were just trying to find
a way of compensating for cheaper, slower lenses. The margin may be
good on a fast prime however there aren't going to be many people buy
one because they're too expensive. On the other hand, make an F4/5.6
(or slower) zoom and fit a cheap gimmick and the world will beat a
path to your door.... mind you, make that 400mm F2 lens with IS and
maybe that's a "must have" for an awful lot of people.

It's been interesting reading. Please carry on!

VR - vibration reduction

AS - anti-shake

IS/VR/AS is certainly not a gimmick, but a function which allows you to
hand hold at longer exposures than you otherwise could, perhaps therefore
allowing you to use a lower ISO and hence produce images with less noise
(grain).

I have been delighted with the in-camera, lens-based IS I have on my own
Panasonic FZ5.

Cheers,
David

acl wrote:
Ken Lucke wrote:
Well, using that argument, none of us using digital are actually
practising true photography anyway. I have a 1910 dictionary here
(14" thick - it's a monster) in my "old world" room that defines
photography as:

"The art of producing images by way of an application of the
chemical changes produced in certain substances, as silver
chloride, bromide, or iodide, by the action of light, or more"
generally of radiant energy."

Yes! Pedantry for the whole family! Actually, photography means
writing/drawing with light. So...

My point is: equipmment changes, words change, and both change to
reflect current usage. To tie a term like "mirror lock up" to
equipment which is no longer prevalent and to maintain that using it in
a current context for an equivalent feature on modern equipment is
wrong, is like saying that we no longer practice photography because
it's not what the original definitions of it specified.

Yes, I actually agree with you he the meaning of words changes with
time. (well, except for looking in dictionaries for definitions of
technical terms)

Anyhow, 'nuff said, too much soap-boxing already.
Well, that much is true, anyway.

Agreed again!

Living languages change, dead ones don't. Latin is a dead language,
which is why it is favored by legal and medical practitioners as the
terms mean the same thing now as they did 200 years ago. It is funny,
based on that, that France seems set of killing their own language by
legislating against adding words to it (changing it). AND they are
succeeding!
How long ago was it that you saw a 'soap box', let alone anyone actually
making a speech from one? How long since you actually 'dialed' a
telephone number? Many terms remain in the language long after the
reason for their use has gone into the mists of history. Even spellings
tend to change over the years.

J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 12:20:10 -0800, sgtdisturbed wrote:

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.

--
Justin C, by the sea.
Well, with IS you won't need a tripod as often as you would without IS.
Carrying ca camera, lenses, and batteries can be heavy enough, throw in
a 15-20 Lb tripod

Uh, my tripod weighs 4 pounds. It's not the lightest on the market. It's
also not lacking in stiffness for any camera I own, although it _is_
lacking in cheapness.

and the load can be a bit too much, especially on a
hike out to the woods to take nature shots where you already have a
30-50 Lb ruck (if you wish to bivouac).

Poor, poor pitiful you. I used to carry 80 for the exercise. If you can't
carry half your body weight you're not in very good shape. The military
routinely schleps a hundred pounds or more.


Humm. Not too many of those military types are 64 years old, either. Grin.
And some of us aren't quite as well off, physically, as we used to be.
I am happy that I can still carry the 50lb. bags of cat litter into the
house, but I do that ONLY if my neighbor isn't available to do it for me.
I am, like Arnold Palmer, 'taking care of the old equipment'.


Lightening the load without
leaving behind essentials can be tricky, so introducing IS will allow
you to leave behind the tripod.

Maybe.


Hardly replaces the tripod. Sometimes the tripod is handy for a place
to put the camera, more than for just being a stable platform. That
said, I have never owned one. Doesn't match with my type of photography.

Newer IS lenses (or VR) make long exposure shots

Not any that I would consider to be "long exposure". They let you go a
couple or three stops slower, not 30 seconds.


I am not sure just how effective the current crop of IS lenses (bodies)
might be on long exposures. Perhaps there is some information about
long exposures...


come out nicely without
a tripod, and taking shots from within a moving vehicle are possible
without having to pull over to take pictures, and serious zoom shots
come out clearer without using the tripod.

I've never had any trouble taking pictures from a moving vehicle without
image stabilization.


I have, but only on bad roads.


Sounds IS itself is almost an essential part of photography, making
certain shots easier.

It's useful, it makes certain shots easier, but it's not a panacea.


I quite agree with your summary. I have never owned a camera/lens with
IS, but can see how it might be useful, especially in these days where
the dominant picture-taking posture seems to be with the camera held at
arm's length in front of the photographer. sigh.

"Justin C" wrote in message
news:justin.0701-96556F.01052608012007@stigmata...
snipped
My original reaction to the idea of IS/VR (what does VR stand for BTW?)
was that the likes of Canon and Nikon were just trying to find a way of
compensating for cheaper, slower lenses. The margin may be good on a
fast prime however there aren't going to be many people buy one because
they're too expensive. On the other hand, make an F4/5.6 (or slower)
zoom and fit a cheap gimmick and the world will beat a path to your
door.... mind you, make that 400mm F2 lens with IS and maybe that's a
"must have" for an awful lot of people.

Canon makes a 400mmf2.8 with IS, also a 500mm and 600mm f4 with IS. Not to
mention a 70-200 f2.8 IS lens, definitely not a "cheap, slow zoom."
--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

In article .com,
"Bill Hilton" wrote:

Justin C wrote:

I think yours, David, was the only negative post on the subject. I'm
grateful that you've brought some negatives to light for me.

So 50 positive posts and one negative one and you latch on to the
negative one Sounds like you already had your mind made up going in
that you weren't going to like it ...

Not at all, I just like to have negatives pointed out when they exist.
(I did see your smiley).


... it wasn't obvious (to me at least) that this would reduce
battery life - but thinking about it now, can you image what a drain
that'd be holding the shutter half-pressed waiting for the moment

So how much do you think it reduces battery life? Would you believe
'very little'?

And by the time I get a new camera it's going to be completely
different. I'm not in the market for a new camera just now having bought
my first digital a few months ago. I hope to get at least five years out
of this - I expect it to last much longer but there may be some new
"killer" development I want to have. $DEITY knows where we will be in
five years.

--
Justin C, by the sea.

Justin C wrote:
[...]
And by the time I get a new camera it's going to be completely
different. I'm not in the market for a new camera just now having bought
my first digital a few months ago.

What did you get?


--
--Bryan

In article ,
Bryan Olson wrote:

Justin C wrote:
[...]
And by the time I get a new camera it's going to be completely
different. I'm not in the market for a new camera just now having bought
my first digital a few months ago.

What did you get?

Digilux 2 - second-hand - I couldn't have afforded a new one! And,
besides, they were discontinued by the time I decided to go digital -
luckily someone else was going back to film at the same time! I like the
fact that it can be used completely manual, records RAW, but doesn't
have a interchangeable lenes - which would encourage me to carry *loads*
of extra stuff. My old camera bag must've weighed about 20 kilos and I'm
sure carrying it often and far contributed to my bad back. I found that
I spent so much time thinking about which kit to use for what that I
didn't concentrate on the important thing, the shot. I forgot that it's
the photographer that makes the image, the gear (however expensive) only
captures it.

The only thing I don't like about the camera is the LCD viewfinder, I'd
prefer direct view - however, I don't get parallax errors with it, so
there are some ups, even with the downs.

Another thing I really like about it is the location of the controls,
it's just like an old manual camera, everything is where you expect it
to be. I find I'm able to switch off from thinking about the camera at
all, once I've taken a meter reading it's all instinct, I'm thinking
about the image and not what's going on with the equipment. Bliss - at
least for this (newly realised) luddite.... (whaddya mean your car
doesn't have a starting handle?!)

--
Justin C, by the sea.

Bill Hilton wrote:
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 had a Fuji S2, and now a Nikon D200. Neither has mirror lockup for
photography (though you can access it for sensor cleaning).

I've owned Miranda, Pentax, Olympus, and Nikon 35mm film SLRs, and none
have had mirror lockup (except the recently-acquired Nikon F, which is
mostly a museum piece for me rather than an in-use camera)

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.

Most macro I've worked the subject isn't still enough to work without
the viewfinder. Landscapes I don't get into short enough shutter speeds
to want lockup.

John Bean wrote:
On 7 Jan 2007 06:47:29 -0800, "Bill Hilton"
wrote:

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

No it does't. Mirror *lock up* means just that - the mirror
is locked in the up position until the lock is released.
Most modern cameras allow a delay to be inderted between
lifting the mirror and opening the shutter which sometimes
can be used as a substitute for MLU, but it isn't the same
thing.

And I was using the same meaning of "mirror lock up" that you are -- the
right meaning, the only meaning.

Several of the cameras I've had, including all the newer Nikons and both
DSLRs, will flop the mirror at the beginning of the self-timer run. But
it isn't the same thing, especially with moving subjects.