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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 17, 2006, 1:08 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Victoria, B.C., Canada
Posts: 875
Default

Ever since I bought my Olympus C2100 UZ I've been very much in favor of Image Stabilization - the optical sort. It really works. I can use the UZI, hand held, at 10x zoom & seldom get pictures that suffer from camera shake.

But...... when I think about the fact that I.S. can make a hand-held exposure at, say, 1/25 second as steady as a non-stabilized one at 1/100 second, I start to think that a camera that would let me use higher shutter speeds all the time should be equally effective at reducing camera shake.

In other words, so long as a camera that can operate at high ISO settings without significant loss of quality, it should make up for not having I.S. - when it's compared with a camera that has I.S., but that isn't much good at higher ISO settings?

Does this make sense?

Herb
Herb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 17, 2006, 6:13 PM   #12
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 78
Default

If you are only going to take picture in sunlight you won't need IS - in other cases it will help. With it I can shoot at 1/10 sec at 200mm. KM A200.

Mike
MikeAusA200 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 18, 2006, 7:18 AM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28
Default

Herb wrote:
Quote:
But...... when I think about the fact that I.S. can make a hand-held exposure at, say, 1/25 second as steady as a non-stabilized one at 1/100 second, I start to think that a camera that would let me use higher shutter speeds all the time should be equally effective at reducing camera shake.

In other words, so long as a camera that can operate at high ISO settings without significant loss of quality, it should make up for not having I.S. - when it's compared with a camera that has I.S., but that isn't much good at higher ISO settings?

Higher shutter speed means you need to have a bigger aperture which in turn will reduce the depth of field. For landscape or architetural pix or if you want everything to be clear and sharp, you will not able to achieve it.
novetan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 18, 2006, 10:37 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Victoria, B.C., Canada
Posts: 875
Default

Yes, but in any given situation you can use a higher shutter speed without increasing the aperture - if you set the ISO to a higher value, can't you?
Herb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 18, 2006, 11:04 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Noticed that those lenses that comes with IS today are generally slower for some reason.....perhapes it's because of the extra elements? (Just like add-on lenses slowing down your aperture IMO) The Canon 17-85mm EF-S IS starts at F/4! :shock:

If you have build in A.S. in your dSLR; imagine you can have a F/1.4 prime glass with IS! Even those old old high quality prime lenses that came out at the time I.S. never existed as a technology; now you can create revolution by fitting them on to your A.S. enabled dSLR and have a fast high quality prime glass with A.S.! :idea: (Something the world could have never thought of last time!)

You get the best of both worlds todayIMO.





IMO, build in I.S. is better.


Imagine how this slim little f/2.8 prime is going to have a build in I.S.>>>



It's avery sharp lens with 9 aperture blades. (The most I've ever come across)










BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 18, 2006, 1:40 PM   #16
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

BenjaminXYZ wrote:
Quote:
Noticed that those lenses that comes with IS today are generally slower for some reason.....perhapes it's because of the extra elements? (Just like add-on lenses slowing down your aperture IMO) The Canon 17-85mm EF-S IS starts at F/4! :shock:
A couple points on this topic.

Step back for a second and ask what lenses gain the most benefit from IS?

Lenses that are long and heavy (and thus require faster shutter speeds to hand hold) and/or lenses that are 'slow' (i.e. not wide apertures) and thus can't take in enough light to get fast shutter speeds.

Now, the long primes all have IS - 600mm, 400mm, 300mm (400 & 300 are both 2.8 lenses).

Now, take something like a 50mm 1.4 lens. What closet are you taking pictures in where 1.4 is giving you 1/15 shutter speeds? And realistically how often are you shooting in THAT dark of an environment and not using a tripod?

IS isn't on the fast, short primes because they benefit the least from it - and, many users of such lenses are using them for portrait work where tripods are being used.

Now, the only fast primes I use are for sports - and I'm using them to get high shutter speeds so IS is pointless in that regard. Maybe someone out there with more fast prime experience can illustrate situations where 1.4 or 1.8 lenses are being used without a tripod and still have too slow a shutter speed for handhold use.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 18, 2006, 4:21 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

My feelings on IS in generalhas flip-flopped. I had a Panny FZ30, but didn't think the IS helped at all - I couldn't get anything that looked even OK at the long end ofits zoom, so I didn't think that IS was very useful at all.

On the other hand, I recently bought a Pentax K100D, which has IS built into the camera. Rather than sitting around being bored while my other half gambled in Las Vegas one night, I took a walk along the Stripwith the camera and a 20 year old manual 24mm 2.8 lens. I didn't want to walk down the street dragging a tripod (liability in crowds).The camera was set to 200 iso, and I took pictures with shutter speeds ranging from 1/20 to 1/8 sec. - I can't normally hold a camera steady enough for those types of shutter speeds. Almost all of them were sharp. I'll no longer leave my camera home when I'm out at night,so yes,I can see why havingIS in-camera for wide-angle primes can be more useful for some people, rather than having IS just in a long zoom lens.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 19, 2006, 12:02 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Alright John, you may like a certain lens a lot (your favourate lens)...now that lens can have I.S. too when it originally can't with a dSLR without build inA.S. :idea:

Tokina AF 17mm f/3.5 AT-X Pro:



I like this lens a lot, and it would be better if there is I.S. for it.

Generally lenses without build in I.S. can have I.S. with a dSLR with a build in CCD shake reduction. (S.R. or A.S.)

Most of the superior lenses doesn't have build in I.S.; they will benefit from one.





BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 19, 2006, 7:18 AM   #19
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Yep, I agree it's a nice feature. But it's just not one of the more important ones to me. There are other features of a camera body that are more important.

Still I wasn't debating whether it would be of benefit. Simply stating why LENS IS was put on the lenses that it was and left off other lenses.


JohnG 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 12:24 PM.