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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Advantage of Visible Stabilisation?
In the Canon 400D White Paper
(http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ite-Paper.pdf), while discussing the advantages of lens-based stabilisation, they state: "Less significant but still worth mentioning is the fact that in-body stabilization is not visible through the finder, whereas Canon lens-based stabilzation definitely is." How do you find that to be an advantage? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Advantage of Visible Stabilisation?
On Dec 19, 9:13 pm, "Wilba" wrote:
In the Canon 400D White Paper (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ebel-XTi-W...), while discussing the advantages of lens-based stabilisation, they state: "Less significant but still worth mentioning is the fact that in-body stabilization is not visible through the finder, whereas Canon lens-based stabilzation definitely is." How do you find that to be an advantage? How do you find it not to be? :-) Ever shot with a 400mm lens hand held? At 400 IS makes a world of difference, at 20mm not so much. In all honest try it out at the local shop, even the 300mm IS's, and tell me you would rather shoot hand held with out. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Advantage of Visible Stabilisation?
On Dec 19, 9:13 pm, "Wilba" wrote:
In the Canon 400D White Paper (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ebel-XTi-W...), while discussing the advantages of lens-based stabilisation, they state: "Less significant but still worth mentioning is the fact that in-body stabilization is not visible through the finder, whereas Canon lens-based stabilzation definitely is." How do you find that to be an advantage? If you want to use your camera and a telephoto lens as a telescope (not a great idea) it might have some value. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Advantage of Visible Stabilisation?
RichA wrote:
On Dec 19, 9:13 pm, "Wilba" wrote: In the Canon 400D White Paper (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ebel-XTi-W...), while discussing the advantages of lens-based stabilisation, they state: "Less significant but still worth mentioning is the fact that in-body stabilization is not visible through the finder, whereas Canon lens-based stabilzation definitely is." How do you find that to be an advantage? If you want to use your camera and a telephoto lens as a telescope (not a great idea) it might have some value. Think of looking through binoculars for comparison if you've ever done that. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Advantage of Visible Stabilisation?
Wilba wrote:
In the Canon 400D White Paper (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ite-Paper.pdf), while discussing the advantages of lens-based stabilisation, they state: "Less significant but still worth mentioning is the fact that in-body stabilization is not visible through the finder, whereas Canon lens-based stabilzation definitely is." How do you find that to be an advantage? Simply stated: - with in-lens IS, as soon as you switch on the IS the image becomes stable in the viewfinder, making it much easier for you to compose the image, and easier for the camera to focus on the image and perform its metering etc. - with in body IS all you and the camera have to look at is an image which is increasingly shaky as the focal length increases. Composition etc. becomes more difficult. It's a significant practical advantage of in-lens IS, and another reason I would avoid in-body IS other things being equal. Cheers, David |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Advantage of Visible Stabilisation?
"David J Taylor" wrote in message .uk... Wilba wrote: In the Canon 400D White Paper (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ite-Paper.pdf), while discussing the advantages of lens-based stabilisation, they state: "Less significant but still worth mentioning is the fact that in-body stabilization is not visible through the finder, whereas Canon lens-based stabilzation definitely is." How do you find that to be an advantage? Simply stated: - with in-lens IS, as soon as you switch on the IS the image becomes stable in the viewfinder, making it much easier for you to compose the image, and easier for the camera to focus on the image and perform its metering etc. - with in body IS all you and the camera have to look at is an image which is increasingly shaky as the focal length increases. Composition etc. becomes more difficult. It's a significant practical advantage of in-lens IS, and another reason I would avoid in-body IS other things being equal. Cheers, David Below 200mm the effect is not as great of course. In camera is of course great value for those that do not use longer lenses, for those that do there is always the tripod of course. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Advantage of Visible Stabilisation?
Pete D wrote:
[] Below 200mm the effect is not as great of course. In camera is of course great value for those that do not use longer lenses, for those that do there is always the tripod of course. The benefit depends on the circumstances. On a quiet, windless day, on the ground, may well be a completely different situation to a windy day on an exposed rock, or when taking pictures from a boat. Try using a tripod from an aircraft or car. In camera is lower-cost if you have existing lenses, but it is a compromise from the performance, reliability and usability viewpoints. Cheers, David |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Advantage of Visible Stabilisation?
David J Taylor wrote:
Wilba wrote: In the Canon 400D White Paper (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ite-Paper.pdf), while discussing the advantages of lens-based stabilisation, they state: "Less significant but still worth mentioning is the fact that in-body stabilization is not visible through the finder, whereas Canon lens-based stabilzation definitely is." How do you find that to be an advantage? Simply stated: - with in-lens IS, as soon as you switch on the IS the image becomes stable in the viewfinder, making it much easier for you to compose the image, and easier for the camera to focus on the image and perform its metering etc. - with in body IS all you and the camera have to look at is an image which is increasingly shaky as the focal length increases. Composition etc. becomes more difficult. It's a significant practical advantage of in-lens IS, and another reason I would avoid in-body IS other things being equal. Surely this only applies to using an optical viewfinder which operates through the lens as in a DSLR? If using an EVF or LCD live view screen would not the in-body stabilisation make the viewed image perfectly stable? -- Chris Malcolm DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Advantage of Visible Stabilisation?
Chris Malcolm wrote:
[] Surely this only applies to using an optical viewfinder which operates through the lens as in a DSLR? If using an EVF or LCD live view screen would not the in-body stabilisation make the viewed image perfectly stable? Chris, "Perfectly stable" - who knows? But better than without the IS, certainly, although not as dramatic an improvement as the resolution of those finders is currently a lot less. Since this was posted in a DSLR group, and the OP referred to a Canon 400D, my answer was in that context. Although viewing can be stabilised when an EVF or LCD is used, having the image stabilised on the focus and other sensors is an important advantage of in-lens IS. I must admit that I would like to see independent comparative tests of the stabilisation capabilities of in-lens and in-body IS. Cheers, David |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Advantage of Visible Stabilisation?
JimKramer wrote:
Wilba wrote: In the Canon 400D White Paper (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ebel-XTi-W...), while discussing the advantages of lens-based stabilisation, they state: "Less significant but still worth mentioning is the fact that in-body stabilization is not visible through the finder, whereas Canon lens-based stabilzation definitely is." How do you find that to be an advantage? How do you find it not to be? :-) I've seen it on a kit 18-55, and I saw it making the view unnaturally jerky, compared to smooth and stable without it. Ever shot with a 400mm lens hand held? I had a 500 (or was it 600?) mm cat many years ago, and yes, I think I did get some shots hand held. :-) At 400 IS makes a world of difference, at 20mm not so much. A world of difference to what? I know IS is A Good Thing (for the sharpness of the image, slower shutter speeds, etc.), but as you look through the viewfinder, how does seeing a stabilised image help you to get the shot? In all honest try it out at the local shop, even the 300mm IS's, and tell me you would rather shoot hand held with out. Unfortunately, I'd have to go 400km to get to a shop that would have something like that in stock. That's why I'm asking here. :-D |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Visible Dust Swabs | gowanoh | Digital SLR Cameras | 8 | August 10th 07 12:43 PM |
Image Stabilisation - why? | Justin C | Digital Photography | 106 | January 19th 07 04:07 AM |
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 05:32 AM |
Dust visible at f/36 | paul | Digital SLR Cameras | 19 | January 24th 05 10:29 PM |