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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 24, 2013, 2:36 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1
Default Vibration Control etc...

Is vibration control/optical stabilization worth the extra money and image sacrifice if you have a tripod/mono pod? Never been an issue before. Is this the nature of the manufacturers from here on out?
fireinspect is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 24, 2013, 2:45 PM   #2
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

Like a monopod/tripod/fast lens/fisheye/flash/telephoto etc, IS/VC/OS is a tool to be used at the right time. As a wedding photographer, there are times when it is really helpful, there are also times where I need one of my f1.4 lenses or a 200mm, a flash etc.

People get bogged down by needing it, I see it as a must have for certain things, the same as I see my monopod as a must have if I'm doing some sports
__________________
[SIZE=1][SIZE=2]Any problems with a post or thread please use the report button at the bottom left of the post and the team will help sort it out.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2013, 2:49 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

VC/OS/IS/VR/WhateverYouWant2CallIt is a way to have the camera/lens compensate for motion blur due to camera shake.

In general, motion blur due to camera shake isn't an issue if you can keep the shutter speed fast enough, or use any of the other equipment and techniques to reduce or eliminate camera shake. And if you've got it and don't need it, you can (and often should) turn it off.

But if you don't have it, and need it, you're out of luck.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2013, 3:15 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fireinspect View Post
Is vibration control/optical stabilization worth the extra money and image sacrifice if you have a tripod/mono pod? Never been an issue before. Is this the nature of the manufacturers from here on out?
Of course, people didn't have a 36 MP camera before, either.
tclune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2013, 3:29 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,234
Default

Some manufacturers still sell camera bodies without stabilization, and you can get lenses without, also. If you don't want to pay the premium for a lens with, you don't have to. I haven't been able to discern any significant differences in bodies with it built-in vs those without, and it can be turned off.
I don't (yet, anyway) own either body or lens with stabilization, and haven't lost any significant shots due to the lack, but if it was available, I might use it in some cases.
An exercise: At a child's birthday party, surrounded by six year old girls, take a shot of the cute, single mom in the corner, with an exposure of about 1/10s. If you pull this off without blur, you definitely don't need image stabilization. (or Valium, for that matter)

brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2013, 4:10 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Bangor,North Wales
Posts: 3,741
Default

fireinspect- if you'll be shooting handheld,in low-ish light and using slow-ish shutter speeds- image stabilization has it's place. Of course, it only eliminates camera shake- not motion blur from a swiftly moving subject.
If you don't shoot in these conditions,use tripods or shoot using the viewfinder(steadier hold) then IS is not really necessary.
That's not to say I wouldn't recommend IS- as it does give you a larger blur/shake free window at slower shutter speeds, giving you a higher hit rate at borderline handheld speeds.
Often a topic for debate, but I find lens based systems far more effective also....
SIMON40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2013, 5:09 PM   #7
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

One thing I will say about in lens IS is that it has real benefits when using longer lenses no matter what the shutter speed as you can keep the subject more easily when you want it as the image isn't moving around as you shake. That's a big benefit when focus is critical on a specific area.
__________________
[SIZE=1][SIZE=2]Any problems with a post or thread please use the report button at the bottom left of the post and the team will help sort it out.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2013, 3:27 PM   #8
Member
 
JPW2020's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: East Sussex, U.K.
Posts: 48
Default

As an enthusiast amateur who is not as young as he used to be with consequent shakier hands and as I don't often carry a tripod or monopod I find lens based IS/OS invaluable in keeping pictures sharp, particularly in low light.Only drawback for me with in lens stabilisation is that the lens can indeed be expensive typically twice the weight and price as their non stabilised alternatives or predecessors and that can be a lot of money.You have to decide if it's worth it for you.I wouldn't be without it.
__________________
“Skill in photography is acquired by practice and not by purchase”.
Olympus OM-D EM-5 Mk ii, M.ZUIKO Digital 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro, M Zuiko Digital 14-150mm F4-5, Panasonic Lumix G VARIO 12-32mm f/3.5-5.6 ASPH.
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ100
JPW2020 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2013, 4:09 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark1616 View Post
One thing I will say about in lens IS is that it has real benefits when using longer lenses no matter what the shutter speed as you can keep the subject more easily when you want it as the image isn't moving around as you shake. That's a big benefit when focus is critical on a specific area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPW2020 View Post
As an enthusiast amateur who is not as young as he used to be with consequent shakier hands and as I don't often carry a tripod or monopod I find lens based IS/OS invaluable in keeping pictures sharp, particularly in low light. ...

Sony's SLTs have the same benefit. The sensor-shift IS in Sony's bodies provides a stabilized image to the electronic viewfinder. Plus, you only need to pay for it once. And the EVF can display a clear, bright image in low light.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Last edited by TCav; Jan 25, 2013 at 4:12 PM.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2013, 3:51 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

If you always shoot from a tripod or (to a lesser extent) a monopod, then IS isn't necessary, and could potentially cause your shots to be softer than they would have otherwise been (at least that's been my experience the time I forgot to turn off the IS when I had my camera mounted on a tripod). I wouldn't think someone shooting sports would be too concerned with it, either, unless they were using a really long lens. I would imagine they would usually be using shutter speeds fast enough to stop the action, which would deal with most camera shake problems.

On the other hand, someone hand-holding a camera of any focal length in a museum or an aquarium, will be very happy they have stabilization. And as I've gotten older, I find that I have to keep my shutter speeds higher than before - I'm not as steady as I once was. My camera has in-body stabilization and I'm delighted that it does since I'm still using manual lenses I bought in 1980. I'd hate to think of trying to replace all my old stuff with lenses that have stabilization (which not only are more expensive, they are often heavier, too).

But it would be nice to have stabilization in the lens for really long focal lengths. I've sometimes struggled a bit with a 300 or longer lens.
mtngal 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 4:43 PM.