Image Stabilization, how it works...how effective is it?

I am with Double Negative, IS does not make up for the loss of speed in lenses. IS uses more battery power and only stabilizes the camera shake. So you can hold your lens at a slower speed, but that does not help you freeze the motion of something like a juggler. You might be able to hold the camera at 1/15 now, but that doesn't make your subject hold still. I prefer the actual change of speed and the gained DOF range.

I think camera sellers loved IS because it is so much easier to explain to a person buying their first DSLR than giving them a short lesson in the relationship between aperture and shutter speed.
 
Last edited:
I'm with StaaleS... 2.8 just isn't fast enough for the kind of low light work I do, and with the performance of the 50D at 1600 or even 3200 I couldn't justify spending the cash to go from my 70-300IS to the 70-200 non-IS. I get an extra 100mm and IS.

Let's assume I had a 300mm f2.8 non-IS with me the night I took the shot of Nick Cave I posted above. It was shot at 1/30 with IS at 5.6, the 300mm 2.8 would have given me 1/125 at f2.8... not fast enough for me to hand hold at 300mm, it may have frozen the subject, but the subject would be blurry from camera shake. Also, I haven't had much experience with the DOF of f2.8 at that distance, but I may not have enough DOF to keep everything in focus.

Don't get me wrong, if I had the cash for the 70-200IS or a 200 f2.0IS damn right I'd go for it, but at less than $500 used the 70-300IS gives me much more bang for the buck than a 2.8 non IS at that focal length
 
rya, limitations aside, I neither want to carry around nor pay for a 300mm 1.4 lens! We understand the relationship between aperture and shutter speed. But there are many times when the fastest lens available isn't fast enough.
 
interested in reading all this. i still am not sold for all of the reasons stated that IS is a big difference with a standard lens in low light. 1/8 second is a long time, even with IS. if the camera shake is eliminiated there is subject motion which effects the image. a fast lens with IS is a double bonus, but then you have to account for DOF.

interesting stuff, all good features for certain, but the ability of the tool effects the style of photography i think.
 
rover, long lenses are a different kind of problem. Even locked on a solid tripod, they amplify shake badly enough to require special techniques to damp vibrations from the camera. Take the same lens off a tripod, and you can often stop subject motion but not vibration and shake on the photographers end. IS is revolutionary.
 
the ability of the tool effects the style of photography i think
Click to expand...
Definitely, yes.

What I am finding is that I sometimes use IS deliberately to be able to get a slow enough shutter speed to see motion blur in handheld shots - it can be good for people shots when the subject is stationary, but peripheral people are moving around.
 
PW, good point. I never shoot lenses longer than 85mm (or with anything that zooms, besides my nikes), so I had not considered the size and cost issues of those lenses.

I still would prefer faster lenses over stabilized for my lengths, but I would really appreciate it on my GRDII.
 
i concur with the "two-three stops" opinion. i had it on a lumix L1 3-4 years ago and definitely liked it ... but not enough to stay with that camera as it really struggled (for other reasons) in low-light situations.
 
rover said:
interested in reading all this. i still am not sold for all of the reasons stated that IS is a big difference with a standard lens in low light. 1/8 second is a long time, even with IS. if the camera shake is eliminiated there is subject motion which effects the image. a fast lens with IS is a double bonus, but then you have to account for DOF.

interesting stuff, all good features for certain, but the ability of the tool effects the style of photography i think.
Click to expand...


As with any other tool or technology it has it's shortcomings, but IS is a fantastic innovation an dparticularly for everyday photography.

Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom