How effective are Image Stabilising systems??


Status
Not open for further replies.
Nov 11, 2007
222
0
0
#1
do the image stabilisers perform as they should or are they just another bunch of sales gimmicks??
 

synapseman

Senior Member
May 6, 2003
2,196
0
0
State of Confusion
www.pbase.com
#7
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. :p
 

Nov 11, 2007
222
0
0
#8
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. :)
 

Qingkai

New Member
Oct 15, 2005
307
0
0
32
Toa Payoh
www.flickr.com
#9
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
:)
 

Nov 11, 2007
222
0
0
#10
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. :)
 

Dream Merchant

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 11, 2007
9,660
6
38
#11
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.
 

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#12
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.
 

Nov 11, 2007
222
0
0
#13
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
 

creampuff

Senior Member
Jul 11, 2006
5,116
1
0
Dover
#14
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.
 

CTN

New Member
May 1, 2006
515
0
0
Bishan
#16
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.
 

Kermitfm

New Member
Mar 10, 2007
301
2
0
#19
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.
 

Nov 11, 2007
222
0
0
#20
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. ;)
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom