Does IS 'really' replace a tripod?

[meanstreak]

JohnG wrote:

One important thought to add to all this - not all tripods are created equal. So, a cheap tripod in windy conditions may be WORSE than using IS hand-held.

So, I would say - a tripod STURDY ENOUGH for the equipment load and environmental conditions will be better than IS. But, don't go buying a $30 tripod and expect steady shots in outdoor windy conditions.

I would add that you might not want to be very far from the camera if mounted on a cheap tripod during a windy day or bye bye camera.

[mtngal]

Short answer - no. Long answer - I have the K100D and have been grateful for the in-camera IS system (they call it Shake Reduction). As others have said, it does a good job up to a point, but is no replacement for a tripod with really slow shutter speeds (no matter what lens I use, a handheld picture taken with a shutter speed of 1 second will have camera shake).

The manual tells you to turn off the SR when using a tripod, but I forgot once when I was taking pictures of a full moon. The pictures with and without SR looked about the same to me (maybe the results would be different with a different subject).

[eric s]

Lets not forget that IS has the advantage of working where you can't use a tripod. Holding the camera over your head, or indoors in some historic buildings.

Personally, I use both IS and a tripod, but I have a large telephoto so I want to reduce the effects of wind (or people jogging by and shaking the ground.)

Definitely don't waste your money on a cheap tripod. They have all the downsides of a tripod (add extra weight, are large and bulky, take time to setup,...) without the benefits of being stable.

Eric

[painintheuk]

Related question...

Is body IS (e.g. Pentax) better than lens IS (e.g. Canon)?

Thanks

[MrPogo]

I can't give an answer based on any specific knowledge, but with questions like this it's usually a case of "depends on the specific camera and specific lens that you're comparing".
That said, in body does have the obvious advantage of working with every lens.

[eric s]

From what I've read (I don't know from experience) IS in the camera body doesn't work as well when coupled with a long telephoto lens (over 400mm, I believe.) It works just as well with shorter lenses.

In-Lens IS/VR/OS/whatever certainly works better to line the pockets of Canon, Nikon, and Sigma with my hard earned cash.

Eric

[rjseeney]

One of the other advantages of in lens IS is the ability to see the effects IS in the viewfinder. This gives you a good idea of how low you can go in terms of shutter speed.

[meanstreak]

rjseeney wrote:

One of the other advantages of in lens IS is the ability to see the effects IS in the viewfinder. This gives you a good idea of how low you can go in terms of shutter speed.

I've never compared the in-camera vs in-lens first hand, but on myMaxxum 7D the LED indicator bars provide feedback on how much camera shake isoccuring andthere is a warning indicator that lets you know when you are exceeding the IS capabilites for specific settings.

I'm not suggesting that seeing the results live isn't a better option, but I question whetherit is worth the price to pay for IS in each lens.

One mainadvantage I see to having it in the lens is that if the ISbreaks down, it only breaks down in the lens. If you lose IS in the camera you lose it on every lens and it may even render the camera inoperable depending on the design and the actual problem. I'm not sure if an IS breakdown in a lens will render the lens inoperable.

As for the original question "Does IS 'really' replace a tripod?" Simply put:

I would have to say that ISdoesn't replace a tripod but it will reduce the amount of times a tripod will be required. Obviously at slow shutter speeds IS is useless. Though obvious to some,there are also shots that require use of a tripod or mounting devicefor other reasons otherthan eliminting blur.