Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 27, 2006, 10:36 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Widowmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 851
Default

My feeling is that its better to have it than not. Also alot of people, when talking about sports, are talking about football, baseball, soccer.. IS can be useful in sports to get motion blur while keeping the subject sharp. Car racing, horse racing, track, cycling etc.. blurring wheels, legs, background can really add to the shot so sometimes you want the shutter speed slower to get this. The IS helps in panning in these situations. Also not all sports shots are going to be action. For example you might might take a static shot of a player at a night game sitting on the bench, head in hands, exhausted from the game. Drop ISO to cut noise, enable IS and shoot away.

This shot was at 1/30th, 420mm (300mm 2.8 with 1.4x) wide open completely handheld no in camera or processed sharpening. Not a great shot but does show IS can work even in extreme situations.


Widowmaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 27, 2006, 1:43 PM   #12
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,544
Default

Since when IS is required for panning?

Isn't it true that photographers have learned to pan years before IS was marketed? - IMO the only reason there's a mode 2 on the lens is such that the IS don't counteract with the horizontal panning motion... A nice to have definetely, but not an absolute necessity!

Both of theses lenses can pan pretty well without any IS:
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...c.php?id=91064
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...c.php?id=30682

NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 27, 2006, 2:08 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Widowmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 851
Default

Thats why I said it can be "useful" . But yes it can also be necessary, depending on how much motion blur you want and how fast the subject is moving and how much light is available. Try a 300mm shot handheld at sub 100 shutter speeds on a moving object and you might find just how necessary it is.

My point is that IS can be useful even in sports. Alot of people don't use it because they are so focused on freezing everything and use a high shutter speed to do this. IMO freezing everything takes away all the action.
Widowmaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2006, 9:28 AM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 18
Default

The IS lenses are a bit too heavy and expensive for me. No doubt the image stabilization is a great feature. So I'm beginning to wonder if it might be a good idea to abandon the Canon and go to a camera with built in IS like Sony/Minolta and save not only on the price of lenses, but also the weight. Anybody have any experience with this?
bakaroni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2006, 5:49 PM   #15
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

bakaroni wrote:
Quote:
The IS lenses are a bit too heavy and expensive for me. No doubt the image stabilization is a great feature. So I'm beginning to wonder if it might be a good idea to abandon the Canon and go to a camera with built in IS like Sony/Minolta and save not only on the price of lenses, but also the weight. Anybody have any experience with this?
Yes is the easy answer. I am just selling my Konica Minolta 5D to my dad as I have switched to the Canon 30D. The IS in the camera was nice no denying it in low light portrait shots, however I am yet to find a situation that I have not been able to shoot without it. I went to Canon for better lens choices, better AF, better build, more comfortable in the hand (it feels like a real camera - as does the Nikon D200 - unlike some of the lesser cameras in the Canon range and the majority of cameras from other manufacturers), faster continuous shoot,good customisationto name a few.

As for not being able to pan at 300mm with sub 1/100s then have a look at the work of TG as shown herewithhis non IS 400mm at 1/40th for the 2nd shot of the page and 1/60th for the 3rdhttp://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=82 It is a skill that needs to be learnt but it can be done well as this shows. I would say look at my own shots but I can't recall which of the car sections on my site had IS on and which didn't but I know that TG does not have the option so it is safe to use his high quality shots.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2006, 4:44 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
AlpineMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 357
Default

Have a look at this: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/top...6485/0#3915925



"in-body IS isn't as good as in-lens IS, so while it may work, up to a point, for focal lengths of up to 100 mm or so, it shows diminishing effectiveness the longer the focal range is. Less than a stop at 300 mm. It *CAN* help a bit, but it will never replace in-lens IS for telezooms. In-body IS is inherently flawed."

Another one: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/top...0337/0#4137210

AlpineMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2006, 5:08 PM   #17
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,544
Default

If you read a Canon forum - of course in-body IS is flawed: :-)
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...hread=21260006
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=20867702
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 19, 2006, 10:51 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
AlpineMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 357
Default

NHL...hmmm...I don't get it. I looked at the links you posted...no arguement about IS in body vs in lens.

But anyway, this got me thinking. But first, I need to first say that I'm no physics expert...but anyway, it still got me thinking ...let's say you're a right handed person and you're holding a baseball bat. Your left hand is positioned all the way at the end of the bat handle...your right hand just above your left hand. Your right hand controls the stability of the bat. If you move your right hand just a little further away from your left hand, the stability of the bat is increased (lessen the effects of movement from your left hand). I'm thinking...wouldn't this hold true for in-body IS vs in-lens IS as well...where the in-lens IS is your right hand...the further you go out of the camera body, the more you lessen the effects of movement from camera shake.
AlpineMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 19, 2006, 2:34 PM   #19
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,544
Default

AlpineMan wrote:
Quote:
NHL...hmmm...I don't get it. I looked at the links you posted...no arguement about IS in body vs in lens.
In-body IS works fine with 500mm lens or more (700mm @ 1/40s here - i.e. 3 to 4-stops):
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=20766184
-> i.e. only Canon (or Nikon) die-hards are telling each other that it won't work for longer telephoto lenses
(if you follow the previous link there's even another example with the Tamron 200-500 with a kenko 2x extender)



Quote:
But anyway, this got me thinking. But first, I need to first say that I'm no physics expert...but anyway, it still got me thinking ...let's say you're a right handed person and you're holding a baseball bat. Your left hand is positioned all the way at the end of the bat handle...your right hand just above your left hand. Your right hand controls the stability of the bat. If you move your right hand just a little further away from your left hand, the stability of the bat is increased (lessen the effects of movement from your left hand). I'm thinking...wouldn't this hold true for in-body IS vs in-lens IS as well...where the in-lens IS is your right hand...the further you go out of the camera body, the more you lessen the effects of movement from camera shake.
Very good reasoning except the sensing part is not at the end of the lens where the big optical elements reside - Most IS are integrated around the lens mount (closer to the body) where the optical elements are smaller for the electronics to be wrapped around them - plus they stay fixed (the end part of the lens usually rotate or move in and out) :?
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 19, 2006, 3:00 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
AlpineMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 357
Default

I'm saying, the further away you get from the body, the better the IS works. So this means, having the IS on the lens makes a more effective IS. No?
AlpineMan is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


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 10:30 AM.