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