Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 28

Thread: How effective are Image Stabilising systems??

  1. #1

    Default How effective are Image Stabilising systems??

    do the image stabilisers perform as they should or are they just another bunch of sales gimmicks??
    There are 3 types of people in this world. One that can count, and one that can't. :sweat:

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Singapore (SengKang)
    Posts
    2,789

    Default Re: How effective are Image Stabilising systems??

    I have used both Canon IS and Nikon VR lenses and they work. Not sure for other systems.
    -Express yourself not in words-
    http://www.majere2sg.com

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    270 degree of Singapore
    Posts
    6,741
    Sony Alpha 700 hobbyist

  4. #4
    Senior Member wrx_sti_22b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Compassvale Lane
    Posts
    4,952

    Default Re: How effective are Image Stabilising systems??

    Very effective...

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Raffles Place
    Posts
    1,808

    Default Re: How effective are Image Stabilising systems??

    Quote Originally Posted by frostyfrostysnowman View Post
    do the image stabilisers perform as they should or are they just another bunch of sales gimmicks??
    very effective, it made an huge impact in your photos.

  6. #6

    Default Re: How effective are Image Stabilising systems??

    VR and IS works like magic... shooting at 1/10s without any handshake yet producing extremely sharp images.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    2,196

    Default Re: How effective are Image Stabilising systems??

    They work to such a point that you will wonder how you ever managed without it. It will be very apparent when you go back to shooting with non-stabilised systems.

    But take note: It's no magic pill, though. Your fundamentals of holding a camera must still be sound. It's quite subtle, but significant enough to make a diff between a sharp shot and a blurred one.

    Those ads that show people jumping around and skateboarding through a shopping mall while shooting one-handed and STILL getting sharp results, of course those are BS lah.
    Sony Alpha system user. www.pbase.com/synapseman

  8. #8

    Default Re: How effective are Image Stabilising systems??

    hahahaha alright man. glad to hear that. just need to check out if the IS system justifies the price difference betw a lens with/without IS.

    looks like it does, especially when I'm going to use the camera in places that are not..well..considered to be a very still platform. aka boat. hahaha. I just wanna find out from end user comments (because I personally deem them the most accurate) when it comes to functions like these.

    True, reviews and all might rave about the "..oh how I love stabilisers.." and stuff but if 10 people said the same thing, I guess there has to be some truth to it right? Now i'll need to find that out for myself.
    There are 3 types of people in this world. One that can count, and one that can't. :sweat:

  9. #9

    Default Re: How effective are Image Stabilising systems??

    Quote Originally Posted by frostyfrostysnowman View Post
    hahahaha alright man. glad to hear that. just need to check out if the IS system justifies the price difference betw a lens with/without IS.

    looks like it does, especially when I'm going to use the camera in places that are not..well..considered to be a very still platform. aka boat. hahaha. I just wanna find out from end user comments (because I personally deem them the most accurate) when it comes to functions like these.

    True, reviews and all might rave about the "..oh how I love stabilisers.." and stuff but if 10 people said the same thing, I guess there has to be some truth to it right? Now i'll need to find that out for myself.
    Hey bro... juz to point out some misconception of VR/IS. VR and IS allows u to eliminate hand shake, allowing u to take pictures at a few F stops slower. However it does not eliminate moving subjects. simply put it can eliminate vibration but not motion. VR will not allow u to freeze moving subjects or to eliminate motion on a boat ! only fast shutter speed will help u there.

    What VR and IS is useful is for you to shoot non moving / slow moving subjects at shutter speed down to 1/8 without using a tripod (= or eliminate handshakes in any shots making your shots much more productive.

    hope that helps

  10. #10

    Default Re: How effective are Image Stabilising systems??

    Quote Originally Posted by Qingkai View Post
    Hey bro... juz to point out some misconception of VR/IS. VR and IS allows u to eliminate hand shake, allowing u to take pictures at a few F stops slower. However it does not eliminate moving subjects. simply put it can eliminate vibration but not motion. VR will not allow u to freeze moving subjects or to eliminate motion on a boat ! only fast shutter speed will help u there.

    What VR and IS is useful is for you to shoot non moving / slow moving subjects at shutter speed down to 1/8 without using a tripod (= or eliminate handshakes in any shots making your shots much more productive.

    hope that helps
    hahah yep yep. thanks. No worries I'm already very clear about how the IS works, but I seriously don't know how people can get confused over it.

    When I said shooting from a boat, I meant i will be on a boat, and shooting people doing a sport i.e. wakeboarding. since the boat isn't going to stay still most of the time, and the use of a tripod is virtually impossible (tried and tested.), the only option is handheld shots and that's where IS will come in really really handy. Especially when doing sun-down sets where lighting gets really poor.
    There are 3 types of people in this world. One that can count, and one that can't. :sweat:

  11. #11

    Default Re: How effective are Image Stabilising systems??

    If it helps you decide, I know of one guy who finds IS invaluable when he shoots from a boat. Other than that, IS can also help even IF there bright sunlight.

    I've used IS in blazing sunlight, and made a comparison shooting a slipper at 200mm at above 1/250. Both pix were sharp looking, but zoom in to 200% and the difference was that in the IS shot, I could very clearly see the fabric pattern of the material used, whereas the non-IS shot showed the fabric pattern to be a slight blur.

    In real life shooting, I did a children's party in clear daylight and had the IS turned on all the time as I was often shooting at 200mm.

    The best result I've had was shooting at night in dim lighting, 1/8 sec, 200mm (so that's like 360mm on a 1.6 FOV crop) squatting down and the picture was razor sharp.

    With tests involving a 100-400L, I had the lens mounted on a 5kg studio tripod, shooting at the SG River, and the difference between the IS and non-IS shots could be seen in 8x10 enlargements. Yeah, I made sure i had optimal settings to ensure proper IS functions while mounted on a tripod - it can be done easily.

    Whether the extra $800 - $1K is worth it or not is something you have to calculate and weigh for yourself.

  12. #12

    Default Re: How effective are Image Stabilising systems??

    If your camera body has the IS built-in, you'll save a huge bundle. I've shot at 300mm hand-held (450mm equiv), 1/6 sec and gotten razor-sharp images in the majority of my shots. And that's on a built-in system so I had no worries about the "extra expense" on IS lenses.
    Alpha

  13. #13

    Default Re: How effective are Image Stabilising systems??

    Quote Originally Posted by Dream Merchant View Post
    If it helps you decide, I know of one guy who finds IS invaluable when he shoots from a boat. Other than that, IS can also help even IF there bright sunlight.

    I've used IS in blazing sunlight, and made a comparison shooting a slipper at 200mm at above 1/250. Both pix were sharp looking, but zoom in to 200% and the difference was that in the IS shot, I could very clearly see the fabric pattern of the material used, whereas the non-IS shot showed the fabric pattern to be a slight blur.

    In real life shooting, I did a children's party in clear daylight and had the IS turned on all the time as I was often shooting at 200mm.

    The best result I've had was shooting at night in dim lighting, 1/8 sec, 200mm (so that's like 360mm on a 1.6 FOV crop) squatting down and the picture was razor sharp.

    With tests involving a 100-400L, I had the lens mounted on a 5kg studio tripod, shooting at the SG River, and the difference between the IS and non-IS shots could be seen in 8x10 enlargements. Yeah, I made sure i had optimal settings to ensure proper IS functions while mounted on a tripod - it can be done easily.

    Whether the extra $800 - $1K is worth it or not is something you have to calculate and weigh for yourself.
    thanks a lot dude!! that quantified my question and made things clear as vodka!! I guess i'm pretty clear of my decision now.

    and rashkae. I've got no IS on my cam. sadly. that's how canon makes moolah out of suckers like me HAHA. :P
    There are 3 types of people in this world. One that can count, and one that can't. :sweat:

  14. #14
    Senior Member creampuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Dover
    Posts
    5,116

    Default Re: How effective are Image Stabilising systems??

    As a Pentax user, in-body Shake Reduction is definitely a winner as one gets stabilization with any and every lens mounted. Have actually shot at 1/4 sec with acceptably sharp results using a 400mm tele handheld. With shorter lenses, shooting at 1/2 sec hasn't been a problem. I dare say the majority of Pentax users have the SR on when shooting handheld most of the time because it simply works.

  15. #15

    Default Re: How effective are Image Stabilising systems??

    Quote Originally Posted by frostyfrostysnowman View Post
    do the image stabilisers perform as they should or are they just another bunch of sales gimmicks??
    They cost so much and have been around for so long. If they didn't work, don't you think someone might have noticed?

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bishan
    Posts
    515

    Default Re: How effective are Image Stabilising systems??

    The VR on my Nikkor 18-200mm and IS on my Oly E-510 work wonders. Both can be hand held up to 200mm at 1/x sec and images are reasonably sharp.

  17. #17

    Default Re: How effective are Image Stabilising systems??

    Aiya... Get these lah...

    http://www.camerasystems.com/gyronfs.htm
    BBB???
    I am NOT a PROfessional photographer and photography is NOT my hobby

  18. #18

    Default Re: How effective are Image Stabilising systems??

    Quote Originally Posted by Youhong View Post
    Aiya... Get these lah...

    http://www.camerasystems.com/gyronfs.htm
    BBB???
    wahahah. you're evil. Now i feel like getting that and mounting it to my head when i go running. You'll see yourself running in never a much CLEARER way.
    There are 3 types of people in this world. One that can count, and one that can't. :sweat:

  19. #19

    Default Re: How effective are Image Stabilising systems??

    I bought the Canon EF 28 - 135 mm IS when it first came out in 1998/99. I do not like flash photography and like to work with available light so the IS, which was new technology then, was heaven sent. It is still working and sharp. I have since added the 17-55 mm IS. My next lens will also be IS if the option is available.

  20. #20

    Default Re: How effective are Image Stabilising systems??

    Quote Originally Posted by Kermitfm View Post
    I bought the Canon EF 28 - 135 mm IS when it first came out in 1998/99. I do not like flash photography and like to work with available light so the IS, which was new technology then, was heaven sent. It is still working and sharp. I have since added the 17-55 mm IS. My next lens will also be IS if the option is available.

    i feel you there man. I do not like flash photography either.
    There are 3 types of people in this world. One that can count, and one that can't. :sweat:

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •