Rangefinder vs. Image Stabilized SLR

[Broke]

It's Puts, so be prepared for a banquet of BS... that being said I thought this was really interesting, and was really quite surprised by the efficacy of image stabilization.

http://www.imx.nl/photo/technique/vibration_reduction_compare.html

I'd still rather have a fast prime than a stabilized zoom 😀

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

Well, the equation is modified if you're talking about a stabilized PRIME. The upcoming Sony A900 will have 24MP, and in-body stabilization, so it works with a 50 or 35mm 1.4 prime, for example.

I'd rather have a stabilized Prime SLR....

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

Interesting conclusions, though:
"One may say that VR at 1/15 is much better than no-VR at 1/180" - that's significant.

I just wish he showed image crops instead of graphs. Reading Puts, it's always like he's trying to prove something. Something other than his actual technical premise....

 

[Faintandfuzzy]

Well, the equation is modified if you're talking about a stabilized PRIME. The upcoming Sony A900 will have 24MP, and in-body stabilization, so it works with a 50 or 35mm 1.4 prime, for example.

I'd rather have a stabilized Prime SLR....

That is just what I did....I picked up the new Pentax K20D, and bought their 16-50 DA zoom. At f2.8, it's pretty decent. I've been playing a bit with the Sigma 30mm f1.4 lens as well. This basically gives me a 45mm equivalent f1.4 stabilized prime. Amazing how dark it can be when I still get a shot. I've been shooting at iso 1600, wide open, at 1/8 sec with no problem.

But, it's still a DSLR.....and I like holding my Bessa R2A better.

 

[mcgrattan]

I've played with long(ish) prime lenses on my GX10 [essentially the same as the K10D].

I have fairly steady hands anyway, and with the image stabilization turned on I was able to get shots at 1/8 with a 135m f2.8 lens wide open that were perfectly acceptable. Not every shot, but definitely more often than not.

Focal length doesn't seem to make as huge a difference as it does with non-stabilized cameras, though. I can't get much longer exposures than 1/4-1/8 with shorter primes without introducing a bit of shake. I presume that 1/4 sec with the stabilization on is the limit of my own personal ability to handhold without shake.

With a fast 50 (f1.7) and the iso set at 800, I get pretty acceptable shots in very low light from the GX10.

That said, a rangefnder is still easier to manually focus in low light.

 

[Thardy]

Something has to be said about technique though. My wife can have a gyroscope attached to her camera and still get shake the way she jabs at the shutter release. 😛

 

[Kent]

That is just what I did....I picked up the new Pentax K20D, and bought their 16-50 DA zoom. At f2.8, it's pretty decent. I've been playing a bit with the Sigma 30mm f1.4 lens as well. This basically gives me a 45mm equivalent f1.4 stabilized prime. Amazing how dark it can be when I still get a shot. I've been shooting at iso 1600, wide open, at 1/8 sec with no problem.

That's really amazing: ISO1600, stabilized f1.4 - WOW!
You just need a candle...

 

[Kent]

Interesting conclusions, though:
"One may say that VR at 1/15 is much better than no-VR at 1/180" - that's significant.

And really indicates a trembling hand. 😉

 

[rolleistef]

some people claim they can take "sharp" picture at 1sec with a M, is that really true? You pretend you're dead and use a 20mm lens?

 

[NickTrop]

Not to overstate the obvious but image stabilization will help with camera shake but not subject motion blur (obviously) at slower speeds. A faster lens may (depending on film speed) enable you to shoot at "faster, slower" shutter speeds (1/30, 1/60) at - say F2, with human (or animal) subjects that might be underexposed at 2.8.

What good is it to shoot at 1/15th and avoid "camera shake" with image stabilization feature but be forced to shoot at that speed because your lens isn't fast enough to shoot at 1/30. Then - at 1/15th, your subject is blurry due to subject motion blur anyway?

IS is a great feature - imo, for shooting telephoto, hand-held, no tri-pod. It's outstanding for this. Still doesn't beat a RF, however (and is a different capability entirely, in fact) for shooting people in available light with a faster - sub 2.0 lens, where you want to shoot at 1/30th, usually.

Image stabilization reduces camera shake

Fast lenses + fast film enable you to shoot human subjects in low light situations at "faster" shutter speeds (1/30th) to avoid subject motion blur.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Oh, Mr. P.

What next, comparing a Swiss Army knife and a Ginsu knife to see which one cuts an aluminum can better? How about a Swiss Army knife versus garden shears, and see which one can cut through wheatgrass faster?

But which one's classier?

No, I have a better one: comparing Tri-X to desaturated Velvia.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

IS is awesome. I can do all kinds of great stuff with my Canon 17-55mm...an absolutely stellar, amazing lens.

However, try taking pictures on the bus without anyone noticing. ;-)

 

[cosmonaut]

I have an Olympus 510 and I can shoot at 1/10 while drinking coffee.

 

[elude]

1/8 standing, to 1/2 if against a wall or a streetlight : M & 50mm and shorter. Concentrate

 

[erikhaugsby]

To your last point, I always wondered why modern digital RFs don't have the in camera IS system. Wouldn't they be that much better?

Bob

Would there even be room in the M8 for a gyroscope and the other IS hardware required?

 

[sanmich]

Did Mr P try this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af3a....com/amazingvideos.php?pl=you&url=Af3aJ2kviJ4

?

 

[funkaoshi]

I just take some diazepam and shoot everything in bulb mode.

 

[laptoprob]

The system Minolta built and Sony uses nowadays really works. Especially for telephoto lenses. I modded my MD 300mm lens to fit the AF mount. And added the chip needed to make use of the in-camera IS. I tested only briefly but the results are amazing.
I don't really see the profit when using wider angle lenses, the range where RF cameras shine. Camera shake is less significant there.

 

[fleetwoodjazz]

One thing is that IS makes the lenses more prone to decentering problem. It is known that the extra optical element degrading the lens durability considerably.

Frankly, Leica lenses are expensive enought and with IS, I think people like me would never really own any Leica lenses at all.

 

[hans voralberg]

I just take some diazepam and shoot everything in bulb mode.

Heck that is the most amazing quote i've seen in a long time, mind if I make it my sig ?