 |
|
|
UER Store
|
|
sweet UER decals:
|
|
|
|
Activity
|
|
706 online
Server Time:
2024-05-11 13:03:43
|
|
|
 velcrozeppelin
     
Location: Rochester, NY
Gender: Male
Mandalorian Mayhem
 |  |  |  | Image Stabilization?
< on 10/7/2008 1:22 PM >
|  | | | I used to have a very nice advanced camera that just started to get a little old for my tastes so I passed it along to my parents. I got a basic point and shoot to replace it while I was in college, and then bought another, nicer point and shoot for travel and such. And that's what I've used for a lot of my pictures.
However, I have been saving my pennies for a new camera (DSLR, I miss my manual focus and stops) and I'm looking for some opinions on image stabilization. I did a quick search and couldn't come up with any good answers, so I'm asking:
What's your opinion on IS lenses/bodies?
I used to work at Best Buy so I know the party line of "It greatly improves shot quality without a tripod when subjects are moving or you move some."
I've played with IS point and shoots and IS lenses on various DSLRs and just don't know what to think of them.
Opinions, please!
Edit: I plan on getting a couple different types of tripods/monopods, too. I know the value of them having used them for so long, so let's factor that into the equation as well.
[last edit 10/7/2008 1:24 PM by velcrozeppelin - edited 1 times]
Me goin' legit would be like JarJar on speech therapy.
I'm on Flickr now! My Flickr Stream | I'm about as thick as a Bryk. |
|
controleman
  
Location: Montreal
Gender: Male
| | | Re: Image Stabilization?
<Reply # 1 on 10/7/2008 1:26 PM >
| | | | Its a good thing to have, but I wouldn't buy it for exploration. You'll always be on a tripod so it will end up draining your battery more than anything else.
|
|
velcrozeppelin
Location: Rochester, NY
Gender: Male
Mandalorian Mayhem
| | | | Re: Image Stabilization?
<Reply # 2 on 10/7/2008 1:29 PM >
| | | | Posted by controleman
Its a good thing to have, but I wouldn't buy it for exploration. You'll always be on a tripod so it will end up draining your battery more than anything else.
|
I'm just thinking for shooting in general, not just exploring. I've got a steady-enough hand that I rarely get fuzzed shots.
Exploring, yeah, I'll probably have some sort of tripod. Traveling, whatever... is it really worth paying the extra dough to get it?
Me goin' legit would be like JarJar on speech therapy.
I'm on Flickr now! My Flickr Stream | I'm about as thick as a Bryk. |
|
Sirber
Location: Québec, QC
Gender: Male
everything wasn't good
| | Re: Image Stabilization?
<Reply # 3 on 10/7/2008 1:31 PM >
| | | | IS/VR is a must to have, and it can be disabled if you don't want to use it, like when you are on a tripod.
"Whosoever is delighted in solitude is either a wild beast or a god." — Sir Francis Bacon |
|
controleman
Location: Montreal
Gender: Male
| | | Re: Image Stabilization?
<Reply # 4 on 10/7/2008 1:33 PM >
| | | | Well I guess it all depends what dough your ready to pay for? It's generally very expensive. Even though I do like to have it, I'd rather not pay for that ''little thing that cost way more''.But I'm on a tight budget so someone else could tell you the opposite thing.
|
|
trent
I'm Trent! Get Bent!
Location: Drainwhale hunting
Gender: Male
Not on UER anymore.
| | | Re: Image Stabilization?
<Reply # 5 on 10/7/2008 2:49 PM >
| | | | I know nothing about camera's, but my 2 cents is this. If it's for urbex photos, you're going to need it on a tripod regardless if it has image stabilization.
I'm talking about shooting in pure darkness or low-light conditions. The images stabilization *might* help when you don't use a tripod while shooting at 1/125 down to 1/30 speeds. But still, I would be using a tripod for those anyway.
As for shooting in darkneess, very low light, and long exposures from like 1/30 down to manual shutter opening working, you'll also need a tripod and the image stabilization will be useless here. Well not usless, but you won't be able to handhold those shots (obviously).
I would estimate my urbex shots fall into these light categories:
40% No natural light (light painting) 1/60 to manual
40% Natural light, but still dark 1/125 to 1/60
20% 1/125 or higher
So stabilization will come in handy for me in 40% of my shots. The other 60% either require a tripod or there is enough light for hand-held shooting without I.S.. Almost any place I go to needs a tripod for at least one nice shot due to lighting, so I would personally trust a steady tripod over image stabilization.
So yah, this is an overly long-winded post saying that the I.S. is nice if you have it, but if you're an urbex photographer, you're going to be using a tripod regardless for the most part. Therefore if you're using a tripod, you don't really need the stabilization, though it is a nice to have and might give you some better shots in the rare openings where you can hand-hold a shot.
He who rules the underground, rules the city above.
|
|
don_corleyone
Location: F/RoX
Gender: Male
I have abandonment issues
| | Re: Image Stabilization?
<Reply # 6 on 10/7/2008 3:51 PM >
| | | | second and third generation IS lenses will give you 2-3 stops. if you're in an area dark enough for shots 1/2 second or longer, the IS is going to be worthless.
that being said, the IS has come in handy when shooting in other scenarios. but most times you can get the same effect with ISO or AEC.
leave the gun. take the cannoli.
|
|
El Gordo
Gender: Male
| | Re: Image Stabilization?
<Reply # 7 on 10/7/2008 8:28 PM >
|  | | | I shoot with a Pentax K10D which has built in image stabilization, controlled by a switch on the back, which works with any lens mounted on the camera. If an old manual focus lens is attached, the camera will ask what the focal length is so it can compensate properly. I find it to be extremely valuable for dark areas when I can't / don't want to bring a tripod with.
This shot for example:
was handheld at ISO 1600 1/13th of a second. I would have been better off with a tripod, yes, but I didn't bring it and the IS helped quite a bit.
I can't speak much for the in-lens IS solutions as I haven't used them. They're supposed to be just as good, if not quite a bit more expensive.
[last edit 10/7/2008 8:28 PM by El Gordo - edited 1 times]
|
|
trent
I'm Trent! Get Bent!
Location: Drainwhale hunting
Gender: Male
Not on UER anymore.
| | | Re: Image Stabilization?
<Reply # 8 on 10/7/2008 8:29 PM >
| | | |
That's pretty impressive being able to suck in so much light that quickly.
He who rules the underground, rules the city above.
|
|
velcrozeppelin
Location: Rochester, NY
Gender: Male
Mandalorian Mayhem
| | | | Re: Image Stabilization?
<Reply # 9 on 10/7/2008 8:47 PM >
| | | | So it's pretty useful, but if I always carry a tripod (which I tend to do), it's not necessary?
Me goin' legit would be like JarJar on speech therapy.
I'm on Flickr now! My Flickr Stream | I'm about as thick as a Bryk. |
|
El Gordo
Gender: Male
| | Re: Image Stabilization?
<Reply # 10 on 10/7/2008 9:22 PM >
| | | | Posted by velcrozeppelin
So it's pretty useful, but if I always carry a tripod (which I tend to do), it's not necessary?
|
Pretty much. In fact, its generally recommended that you turn IS off when the camera is mounted on a tripod.
If you're planning on buying Pentax / Sony / Olympus anyway (I did because of a good sized Pentax lens collection and good pricing) you'll get it built in. Beyond that if you're used to a tripod its a far better solution and I wouldn't go out my way to buy IS equipment for what you're doing.
|
|
KleineAap
Location: The Netherlands
Gender: Male
Monkey see, monkey does... But no spanking the monkey!
| | | Re: Image Stabilization?
<Reply # 11 on 10/21/2008 1:42 PM >
| | | | It helped me safe quite a few photos from being all blurred... But it's not a wonder like some people like to think. I reckon it allows shooting in 3 stops less, but this is just a guess.
As for the tripod story, some pictures can't be taken from a tripod (looking down in a hole for example, so it's always good to know you got IS for just those pictures. A steady hand helps a lot as well ;)
For those wondering what the max shutter is before a picture is blurred, I always use mm = max shutter, so for example, shooting fully zoomed with a 250mm lens, your max shutter should be 1/250, and at 55mm it's 1/50. This is no rocket science, but easy to remember and it works well 
Anyway, if you got the choice between an IS and non IS lens, spend the few bucks more. Cause some pictures can be saved by it and pictures can't be replaced by money most of the time.
|
|
Aleksandar
Location: United States
Gender: Male
your darkest shadow, my oldest friend; the world's become ashes, this is the end.
| | Re: Image Stabilization?
<Reply # 12 on 10/21/2008 7:29 PM >
| | | | I love VR on my lenses. Some bring tripods or monopods but i don't, unless i'm going for artistic shots.
mostly though i'm just going for "pretty good" shots while i stay on the move, and for that purpose VR is ideal.
perhaps most importantly, in my urban explores i just don't feel i have the time to mess with tri/monopods.
Freedom breeds war; and Peace, slavery. So it shall be forevermore: Men who love freedom buy it with their lives, and lovers of peace with their freedom. |
|
metawaffle
King of Puns
Location: Brisbane!
Gender: Male
Purveyor of Fine Lampshades
| | | Re: Image Stabilization?
<Reply # 13 on 12/4/2008 12:12 PM >
| | | | Posted by velcrozeppelin
I used to work at Best Buy so I know the party line of "It greatly improves shot quality without a tripod when subjects are moving or you move some."
|
Ah, now only half of this is true. Image stabilising will essentially make your hands a little steadier, and that's about it. It means that you can hand hold a shot in slightly lower light than you otherwise might, assuming your subject isn't moving.
If your subject is moving, you're out of luck - image stabilising gear won't help at all, and you need to deal with it the same way you would with any camera or lens. Someone once put it as: "your shot of the sports field will have crisp, sharp grass, and blurry players."
Anyway, if you're already planning on using tripods and monopods, it's no big deal either way 
http://www.longexposure.net |
|
dsankt
Location: live and in the fresh
| | | | Re: Image Stabilization?
<Reply # 14 on 12/4/2008 12:44 PM >
| | | | I've shot sports on IS, in the mode where horizontal movement isn't gyroscopically corrected. Works okay.
2 nights ago we shot photos of my crotch region and IS was very handy, saved us the effort of setting up a tripod. To me that convenience was work the extra G... or so I'm telling myself.
sleepycity.net: watch out for the third rail baby, that shit is high voltage. urbex and urban exploration photography |
|
insainly sound
Location: Bay Area, CA
Gender: Female
How'd we get here, and how are we getting out of here?!
| | | Re: Image Stabilization?
<Reply # 15 on 12/21/2008 6:27 AM >
| | | | Honestly I don't think it's worth it on wide angles, and general zoom lenses. It won't help for a large chunk of those style shots anyways. For urban exploration it won't help all that much anyways, besides you should get used to using a tripod for urbanex shots anyways. It allows you to compose your shots better, but that being said, VR/IS is GREAT on a telephoto! I have the Nikon 80-400 VR and even with my doubler, I still can get amazing hand held shots at 800mm with the ISO boosted up a little bit (in day light of course). Just my two cents... Besides VR/IS does damage the image quality a little bit, to me a trade off not worth it on wide angles.
Check out my photo blog! |
|
|
|
All content and images copyright © 2002-2024 UER.CA and respective creators. Graphical Design by Crossfire.
To contact webmaster, or click to email with problems or other questions about this site:
UER CONTACT
View Terms of Service |
View Privacy Policy |
Server colocation provided by Beanfield
This page was generated for you in 125 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 741360106 pages have been generated.
|
|
