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
|
|||
|
|||
Image Stabilization: Threat or Menace?
Do people think this feature helps? I've got a Canon 17-85/5.6 IS/USM on
the Digital Rebel. I've tried shooting with and without IS and I don't see a whole lot of difference. I've always been pretty decent at hand-holding. I've run some informal tests and honestly I can't see a consistent difference one way or another. Is there any downside to just leaving it on all the time in the hopes it might do some good? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Image Stabilization: Threat or Menace?
Can you handhold at 1/6th of a second at 85 mm?
That's what IS is for. It definitely works. Gadi "fishfry" wrote in message ... Do people think this feature helps? I've got a Canon 17-85/5.6 IS/USM on the Digital Rebel. I've tried shooting with and without IS and I don't see a whole lot of difference. I've always been pretty decent at hand-holding. I've run some informal tests and honestly I can't see a consistent difference one way or another. Is there any downside to just leaving it on all the time in the hopes it might do some good? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Image Stabilization: Threat or Menace?
fishfry wrote: Do people think this feature helps? I've got a Canon 17-85/5.6 IS/USM on the Digital Rebel. I've tried shooting with and without IS and I don't see a whole lot of difference. I've always been pretty decent at hand-holding. I've run some informal tests and honestly I can't see a consistent difference one way or another. Is there any downside to just leaving it on all the time in the hopes it might do some good? When using a 17 mm. lens, it may not make much difference under "normal" lighting conditions. Did you take any shots in sufficiently low light that you required a speed of 1/4 sec? You would probably see some difference then. Bob Williams |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Image Stabilization: Threat or Menace?
fishfry wrote:
Do people think this feature helps? I've got a Canon 17-85/5.6 IS/USM on the Digital Rebel. I've tried shooting with and without IS and I don't see a whole lot of difference. I've always been pretty decent at hand-holding. I've run some informal tests and honestly I can't see a consistent difference one way or another. Is there any downside to just leaving it on all the time in the hopes it might do some good? Yes. IS uses some battery power. If you can't tell any difference in your pictures, it probably means you aren't shooting at maximum zoom much, or use either a tripod, or some very steady method of keeping the camera from moving. There are even situations where the IS will be a negative influence on the picture quality. Learn the specifics of the IS for your particular camera/lens, and see if you can tell any difference. Generally, IS will give you better pictures at long zooms in hand-held use. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Image Stabilization: Threat or Menace?
Ron Hunter wrote:
fishfry wrote: Do people think this feature helps? I've got a Canon 17-85/5.6 IS/USM on the Digital Rebel. I've tried shooting with and without IS and I don't see a whole lot of difference. I've always been pretty decent at hand-holding. I've run some informal tests and honestly I can't see a consistent difference one way or another. Is there any downside to just leaving it on all the time in the hopes it might do some good? Yes. IS uses some battery power. If you can't tell any difference in your pictures, it probably means you aren't shooting at maximum zoom much, or use either a tripod, or some very steady method of keeping the camera from moving. Or he's shooting at shutter speeds fast enough to render IS less necessary. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Image Stabilization: Threat or Menace?
Dear "completely" confused,
That wasn't the question. He's not on the market for a new lens. Marcel |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Image Stabilization: Threat or Menace?
"fishfry" wrote in message
... Do people think this feature helps? I've got a Canon 17-85/5.6 IS/USM on the Digital Rebel. I've tried shooting with and without IS and I don't see a whole lot of difference. I've always been pretty decent at hand-holding. I've run some informal tests and honestly I can't see a consistent difference one way or another. Is there any downside to just leaving it on all the time in the hopes it might do some good? Hi. Leaving it on all the time will drain the battery quicker. IS should not be used when the Camera is on a tripod, it might just cause some shake then. As for not noticing much difference, well you would not really expect to have much in the way of camera shake at 85mm, under normal conditions. Test it under more extreme conditions like at a quarter sec. I have a Nikon 80 - 400 VR, and I can easily get perfectly sharp images handholding at 1- 60th, at the long end, even in a slight breeze, and am pretty sure I could get as good results at lower speeds if I really tried. Roy G |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Image Stabilization: Threat or Menace?
"fishfry" wrote in message
... Do people think this feature helps? I've got a Canon 17-85/5.6 IS/USM on the Digital Rebel. I've tried shooting with and without IS and I don't see a whole lot of difference. I've always been pretty decent at hand-holding. I've run some informal tests and honestly I can't see a consistent difference one way or another. Is there any downside to just leaving it on all the time in the hopes it might do some good? On my 300 f/4 L IS, it works well. I no longer lug a tripod around. On a shorter lens, you'd have to get into much slower shutter speeds to see a big difference. John |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Image Stabilization: Threat or Menace?
fishfry writes ...
Do people think this feature helps? Yes, many of us feel it's extremely valuable in most typical situations. I wouldn't buy a telephoto without this feature. I've tried shooting with and without IS and I don't see a whole lot of difference ... I've run some informal tests and honestly I can't see a consistent difference one way or another You won't see a difference at higher shutter speeds ... run this test to see the advantages ... at 85 mm shoot something with plenty of detail, say a newspaper so you can see the text ... shoot with IS off at 1/125 th sec, then 1/60th sec, 1/30 sec, 1/15th sec, 1/8th sec, 1/4th sec ... now shoot the same sequence with IS on ... if you are right when you say "I've always been pretty decent at hand-holding" then you likely won't see a difference at 1/125th or maybe 1/60th but I'll bet by the time you get to 1/15th sec and slower you'll see a big difference. In theory the newest IS lenses give you about 3 stops gain, so "in theory" you might find IS at 1/8th sec is as sharp as no IS at 1/60th sec. Try this test and let us know how it goes Bill |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Image Stabilization: Threat or Menace?
Tesco News wrote:
[...] IS should not be used when the Camera is on a tripod, it might just cause some shake then. My manual recommends this as well, but does not say why. Can you help me underdstand why? I accidentally left it on when using a tripod and remote shutter release last night and did not have any problems (shooting with exposures up to 8 seconds). -- - Barry |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Image Stabilization Lenses | Sandy Bloom, Ph.D. | Digital SLR Cameras | 5 | January 20th 06 05:02 PM |
image stabilization | al-Farrob | Digital Photography | 15 | January 6th 05 05:15 PM |
[SI] Reflections - my comments | Alan Browne | 35mm Photo Equipment | 17 | December 4th 04 04:07 PM |
Canon Image Stabilization, DO, Lenses? | Wright | Digital Photography | 20 | November 15th 04 11:13 AM |
RAW Image Files - please explain | PeterH | Digital Photography | 43 | August 14th 04 12:40 PM |