Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 8, 2005, 3:10 PM   #1
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,724

One of my big questions (along with price) is I wonder how much IS would be needed or useful with a Dslr? Is the superior speed, lense availability etc., enough to offset the useful feature of IS? Best regards,

KENNETHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 8, 2005, 4:27 PM   #2
Super Moderator
peripatetic's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,598


Mostly DSLRs put the IS in the lens rather than the body. The exception is the new Konina/Minola 7D.

I have 2 of the Canon 3rd generation IS lenses and they're excellent. However they only stop camera shake they don't stop motion so they're of limited use for moving subjects.

peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2005, 6:04 PM   #3
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803

A "fast" lens (larger aperture, lower f-stop) is just as good as IS on a slower lens. But IS on a fast lens is even better. It certainly doesn't hurt (except making us a bit lazy with our technique) and it can help a lot.

I know that even on a very tripod and head there is a noticable improvement in sharpness if I have IS on.

eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2005, 6:18 PM   #4
Posts: n/a

Having had & used both types of cameras, I didn't want to shell out the extra $300-$500 for an IS lens. The KM 7D eliminates some of that (but I would hold off untill the next model is released).

While DSLR's do have larger sensors (& less noise at higher ISO's) my neck problems forced me to use a tripod all the time (the D7 excluded). Having used a Canon D30 & then going to a Minolta A1 was a good thing for me. I guess it all has to do with what kinds of shots you are wanting to take.
  Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2005, 6:44 PM   #5
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 544

Whether image stabilization will help depends mostly upon which lens you're talking about and whether you shoot hand held or not. A faster lens is better in some ways than a slower lens with IS. A fast lens will allow stop action while a slower lens with IS only reduces the effects of camera shake IS is most important in longer lenses. I'll admit it works fine on my ES-S 17-85IS.

A monopod offers an inexpensive, tho' not a perfect alternative to IS.

Haven't heard how well the body mounted IS works on the Minolta. There are other issues when buying a DSLR besides stabilization. Consider primaliy the availability of lenses that will do the job for you.
Wildman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 9, 2005, 3:53 AM   #6
Senior Member
cameranserai's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 548

If you shoot motor racing picture, as I do, then the combination of F2.8 at 300mm and F3.5 at 420 mm (allowing for the 1.5 factor)with the TC14E is still helped one heck of a lot by image stabilistation. And as I posted elsewhere, on safari in a truck bouncing over rough terrain it was almost essential. It all depends on the type of photography you do. For portraiture no use really, but for sports a boon. Don't knock it unless you have real experience of it in action.

I suggest you go here and look at the two photos at the bottom of the article to see the difference in action. You might then, like me, become a convert!

cameranserai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 9, 2005, 7:22 AM   #7
Senior Member
NHL's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,331

Like peripatetic here's my experience with IS: "they only stop camera shake they don't stop motion so they're of limited use for moving subjects" - ie IS and "sport" do not mix - Until someone post a picture of of an action @ 1/60s or below and prove otherwise I would be skeptical. The above link is again a picture of a 'static' still object...
I ski/snowboard with my 28-135 IS all the time. The IS is fantastic for shooting mountain ranges in late afternoon, but when it comes to skiers going downhill - forget it !!!

Here's some fast pictures with a lens with no IS in fact a lens IS must be turned off to create the same panning effect: http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...c.php?id=32296

... and here's one @ 1/250s (no IS as well): http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...c.php?id=30682

-> If one has to shoot at a minimum shutter speed anyway required for freezing an action then IS is not really effective anymore
- ie the benefit of shooting @ lower shutter speed is offset by the subject's motion blur :idea:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 9, 2005, 4:47 PM   #8
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,724

Amazing! Thank you all very much for the range of replies. I've read them all at least twice. Having been unbearably itchy to get my wallet out and BUY something (something as in a new camera) one very important feature left for me to resolve is IS. I do love to shoot wildlife. I have my best luck at finding Elk, deer, mountain sheep, coyotes and sometimes wolves...just as the light is begining to fade, and often they are at the edge of a clearing, a few feet into the trees. And of course it's hard to get a still shot. So Many of my best chances turn out blurry and I wondered howa fast lense with a Dslr would compare to a higher zoom w/IS. Nearly all these shots are hand held. I really was hopng a bit more would be revealed after the last big camera show. I'm very interested in seeing the new Canon Rebel. Again my sincere thanks...it's been an agonizingly long wait and I'm so close to deciding. Best regards,

KENNETHD is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:07 AM.