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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 7, 2006, 12:29 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

JohnG wrote:
Quote:
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.
meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2006, 12:30 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

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).
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2006, 2:47 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

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
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2006, 7:05 PM   #14
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 39
Default

Related question...

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

Thanks
painintheuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2006, 7:38 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 228
Default

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.
MrPogo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2006, 8:52 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

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


eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2006, 6:38 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

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.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2006, 9:54 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

rjseeney wrote:
Quote:
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.
meanstreak 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 1:35 PM.