POLL: How important is Image Stabilisation to you?

[Ian]

When deciding on the purchase of a new digital camera, or a lens (not wide angle) for your DSLR camera, how important is Image Stabilisation, or an anti-shake feature, to your choice?

[Pol]

Re: POLL: How important is Image Stabilisation to you?

When deciding on the purchase of a new digital camera, or a lens (not wide angle) for your DSLR camera, how important is Image Stabilisation, or an anti-shake feature, to your choice?

Not critical .. but nevertheless nice to have it available.

Pol

[lumix]

Re: POLL: How important is Image Stabilisation to you?

Having used a camera with stabilization, I would not consider any camera that did not have it installed. For me this feacher has opened up numerous opportunities that would normally resorted to compromising on camera settings just to be able to record the shot. There are occasions when light is poor and the use of flash is not possible, this feature comes into it's own. Ok if you have a top of the range camera with usable high ISO speeds, but in general most of us have to watch out for noise. Doing so means lower ISO settings slower shutter speed and lens at full bore. A combination that dose not lend itself to quality images. Stabilisation in camera is my first choice, that way all lenses benefit, even macro.

[Bearface]

Re: POLL: How important is Image Stabilisation to you?

Looks like I'm in a minority here. So nothing's new there, then...

I have two Canon DSLRs and a Hasselblad-based MF / Digital kit. None of my lenses has the IS feature, but I have used them and/or hired lenses with this feature; not out of the need for IS itself, but because I've needed the extra focal length or the zoom range of a specific lens. Recently these have included a 300mm f2.8L IS and a 24-105 f4L IS, and I've used numerous others too.

Personally I like using a tripod when the conditions demand it, and while it might be possible to hand-hold at 1/20th or less with an IS-equipped lens (whereas 1/60th is my personal limit prior to deploying the tripod, especially when using a longer lens...), most people would agree that at even slower speeds, there's only so much image-stabilization can do before you have to concede and lock the camera in place. Sure, people will jump in and say they can get pin-sharp shots hand-holding at 1/5th sec with IS switched on but it's not a risk I'd be willing to take, frankly.

Then there's the question of optical quality. Plenty of people in forums (as well as some reviews and the blokes at my pro supplier) reckon that many of the IS versions of a given lens offer marginally less overall sharpness than their non-IS equivalents. Sure, it might well be a minimal difference they're referring to, but when I combine that information with the doubts I already have.............well I just prefer the simplicity and predictability of my tripod.

These are just my personal views. Some people - for example Stephen, whom I know very well - see things differently and if they feel that the benefits outweigh the compromises, they have every right to express those opinions and to support the technology. For me though, it's about how I operate and what suits my needs...........and I just don't need IS...

[Patrick]

Re: POLL: How important is Image Stabilisation to you?

Looks like I'm in a minority here. So nothing's new there, then...

I have two Canon DSLRs and a Hasselblad-based MF / Digital kit. None of my lenses has the IS feature, but I have used them and/or hired lenses with this feature; not out of the need for IS itself, but because I've needed the extra focal length or the zoom range of a specific lens. Recently these have included a 300mm f2.8L IS and a 24-105 f4L IS, and I've used numerous others too.

Personally I like using a tripod when the conditions demand it, and while it might be possible to hand-hold at 1/20th or less with an IS-equipped lens (whereas 1/60th is my personal limit for deploying the tripod, especially when using a longer lens...), most people would agree that at even slower speeds, there's only so much image-stabilization can do before you have to concede and lock the camera in place. Sure, people will jump in and say they can get pin-sharp shots hand-holding at 1/5th sec with IS switched on but it's not a risk I'd be willing to take, frankly.

Then there's the question of optical quality. Plenty of people in forums (as well as some reviews and the blokes at my pro supplier) reckon that many of the IS versions of a given lens offer marginally less overall sharpness than their non-IS equivalents. Sure, it might well be a minimal difference they're referring to, but when I combine that information with the doubts I already have.............well I just prefer the simplicity and predictability of my tripod.

These are just my personal views. Some people - for example Stephen, whom I know very well - see things differently and if they feel that the benefits outweigh the compromises, they have every right to express those opinions and to support the technology. For me though, it's about how I operate and what suits my needs...........and I just don't need IS...

[lumix]

Re: POLL: How important is Image Stabilisation to you?

Looks like I'm in a minority here. So nothing's new there, then...

I have two Canon DSLRs and a Hasselblad-based MF / Digital kit. None of my lenses has the IS feature, but I have used them and/or hired lenses with this feature; not out of the need for IS itself, but because I've needed the extra focal length or the zoom range of a specific lens. Recently these have included a 300mm f2.8L IS and a 24-105 f4L IS, and I've used numerous others too.

Personally I like using a tripod when the conditions demand it, and while it might be possible to hand-hold at 1/20th or less with an IS-equipped lens (whereas 1/60th is my personal limit prior to deploying the tripod, especially when using a longer lens...), most people would agree that at even slower speeds, there's only so much image-stabilization can do before you have to concede and lock the camera in place. Sure, people will jump in and say they can get pin-sharp shots hand-holding at 1/5th sec with IS switched on but it's not a risk I'd be willing to take, frankly.

Then there's the question of optical quality. Plenty of people in forums (as well as some reviews and the blokes at my pro supplier) reckon that many of the IS versions of a given lens offer marginally less overall sharpness than their non-IS equivalents. Sure, it might well be a minimal difference they're referring to, but when I combine that information with the doubts I already have.............well I just prefer the simplicity and predictability of my tripod.

These are just my personal views. Some people - for example Stephen, whom I know very well - see things differently and if they feel that the benefits outweigh the compromises, they have every right to express those opinions and to support the technology. For me though, it's about how I operate and what suits my needs...........and I just don't need IS...

Tim I can see that in your case, knowing the class of camera and your style of photography, You would have little use for stabilisation. I too would prefer to use a tripod, in fact I often do. Not having the option to use stabilisation, ie at a zoo when there are crowds of people around and the tripod is imposable to use, still makes it a priority for me. Patricks point about needing a tripod to help compose shots with long lenses can be over come by switching to mode one, which helps steady the image in the viewfinder. All in all it really dose boil down to the type of photography you participate in and more importantly the amount of equipment you can carry.

[Stephen]

Re: POLL: How important is Image Stabilisation to you?

One aspect of my work involves working in exhibition halls and auditoriums, where I need the use of a longish zoom lens. I used to have the 70-300 f3.5-4.5 IS which I used in these conditions. That lens was I think the first generation Canon IS and though it worked well enough I was never that happy with the shots taken of people in low light. I sold that lens and bought the 70-200 f2.8L, it was a revelation in many respects as not only could I use the f2.8 to great effect, it also gave me that extra stop advantage and I ended up with more keepers than before. Photographing a speaker at a lecturn with relativeley low light conditions and waiting for the optimum moment to fire the shutter is a balancing act of shutter speed against aperture and ISO setting. Getting a blurred image though camera shake or movement of the subject will not do. However this lens gave me a better result even though it was bigger and heavier than the lens I had previously

I then discovered the Neotec monopod which has again improved the results I get, and relieved me of the fiddly telescopic feature of regular monopods. I have to say however that I still hanker after the IS version of that 70-200 lens, which is why I'm still considering selling the 100-400IS and my current 70-200 in order to get the IS version.

I can therefore, because of the type of work I have to do, see the advantage of IS. However whilst I understand why you can't use IS on a tripod, I'm still unsure about its use on a Monopod, is it still definately a nono. I see the monopod as a support but not a rigid one like a tripod so wonder if the IS will still work. Haveing never tried it with a monopod I'm open to some definative answer.

[Bearface]

Re: POLL: How important is Image Stabilisation to you?

Tim I can see that in your case, knowing the class of camera and your style of photography, You would have little use for stabilisation.

The thing is, there's the stuff I post here (which is all personal work) and then there's the commercial stuff I do for my business, which includes shooting interiors for architects and designers. If IS was a viable alternative to a tripod at very low shutter speeds (and if image quality was unaffected...), I'd buy into it tomorrow. Or even today...

I too would prefer to use a tripod, in fact I often do. Not having the option to use stabilisation, ie at a zoo when there are crowds of people around and the tripod is imposable to use, still makes it a priority for me.

It probably makes a lot of sense to people who want to get a quick shot and either crowds or other circumstances make a tripod impossible, however for me the tripod has to go wherever I need it - crowded or not - because it's an essential tool at low shutter speeds where you're using low ambient light and you need a strong depth of field. I don't doubt that an IS lens could grant me a stop or two in terms of leeway, but when you're getting into the realms of 1/10th sec or slower, the only real alternatives are either additional lighting or a tripod. For interiors I prefer to use available light, so that leaves me with the tripod. Don't get me wrong, I can see Stephen's point of view when he's working in auditoriums or events where a tripod could be obstructive, but in my line of work it's crucial to getting the job right.

Patricks point about needing a tripod to help compose shots with long lenses can be over come by switching to mode one, which helps steady the image in the viewfinder. All in all it really dose boil down to the type of photography you participate in and more importantly the amount of equipment you can carry.

Can IS seriously compare to a locked-down camera at 300-400mm if you're after a fairly strong DOF and lighting is poor? I'd love to see some proper findings, because I remain sceptical

But yes, it's definitely about individuals and their needs

[lumix]

Re: POLL: How important is Image Stabilisation to you?

Tim you have two things in your favour, one you are still a young man compared to me and two working professionally you have the advantage of being able to set the shot up right. Take me back 30 years and I would feel exactly like you. Steven I have used my camera on a mono pod with and without IS and have found no difference. I now tend to leave it on except when using a tripod. My camera also has a pan setting for the IS which limits the stabilizer to one direction only. That is also a very useful feacher.

[Archangel]

Re: POLL: How important is Image Stabilisation to you?

No doubt IS gives the photographer much more flexibility in terms of shooting in various conditions.
Having used both camera types (with and without IS), I do prefer IS as I can shoot handheld even down to 1/4 sec in typical street lighting.

As far as image quality is concerned, yes there are rumours spread around different forums that IS degrades quality. To me they remain only rumors as my tests didn't show such thing.

So, I do prefer the IS and given the lowlight handheld shots I've taken, I consider it a must in a digital camera.
The tendency of manufacturers to make stabilised lenses lately plus the addition of it in the newer DSLR cameras, do show that there is a need for.

I only wait to hear after a few years when everything will be ISed, if people will say the same as they do now that don't have the option to uses IS in their cameras.

[Bearface]

Re: POLL: How important is Image Stabilisation to you?

As far as image quality is concerned, yes there are rumours spread around different forums that IS degrades quality.

This doesn't appear to be a rumour. And this (final paragraph) suggests the findings were not the result of a bad sample...

To me they remain only rumors as my tests didn't show such thing.

Out of interest, which lenses did you test? Any chance you could publish your methods and findings here..?

[Stephen]

Re: POLL: How important is Image Stabilisation to you?

I can see the logic in the suggestion that the non IS 70-200 is perhaps a tad sharper, if not only because there are less lens elements. However, yer man seems to be saying these differences are more significant with film and that with digital there is no dicernable difference. Obviously though the test do show a difference and I acknowledge that.

[Ian]

Re: POLL: How important is Image Stabilisation to you?

Looks like I'm in a minority here. So nothing's new there, then...

I have two Canon DSLRs and a Hasselblad-based MF / Digital kit. None of my lenses has the IS feature, but I have used them and/or hired lenses with this feature; not out of the need for IS itself, but because I've needed the extra focal length or the zoom range of a specific lens. Recently these have included a 300mm f2.8L IS and a 24-105 f4L IS, and I've used numerous others too.

Personally I like using a tripod when the conditions demand it, and while it might be possible to hand-hold at 1/20th or less with an IS-equipped lens (whereas 1/60th is my personal limit prior to deploying the tripod, especially when using a longer lens...), most people would agree that at even slower speeds, there's only so much image-stabilization can do before you have to concede and lock the camera in place. Sure, people will jump in and say they can get pin-sharp shots hand-holding at 1/5th sec with IS switched on but it's not a risk I'd be willing to take, frankly.

Then there's the question of optical quality. Plenty of people in forums (as well as some reviews and the blokes at my pro supplier) reckon that many of the IS versions of a given lens offer marginally less overall sharpness than their non-IS equivalents. Sure, it might well be a minimal difference they're referring to, but when I combine that information with the doubts I already have.............well I just prefer the simplicity and predictability of my tripod.

These are just my personal views. Some people - for example Stephen, whom I know very well - see things differently and if they feel that the benefits outweigh the compromises, they have every right to express those opinions and to support the technology. For me though, it's about how I operate and what suits my needs...........and I just don't need IS...

Hi Tim, I think your points are very reasonable and well made with respect to your ideals and your photography. You are a technical perfectionist. I don't think I have ever seen a 'grabbed' shot from you; you like everything to be as good as it can possibly be and you have the patience and determination to prepare in advance and to bring your tripod with you. The result is that you have shown us brilliantly detailed and carefully composed shots - again and again

And I think you will agree that IS solutions are NOT really aimed at the kind of photographer that you are. There is of course nothing wrong with the wandering opportunist photographer, someone who has no time to stop and set up a tripod - or even a monopod - when on the hunt for that fleeting moment in time and not knowing precisely where it will happen or if the lighting will be ideal. Some exquisite shots can certainly result from situations like these and I certainly feel that in quite a few circumstances, IS, when used properly can make the difference between a great shot and a not so great one.

As Frankie Dettori most likely said: it's horses for courses

Ian

[Stephen]

Re: POLL: How important is Image Stabilisation to you?

Steven I have used my camera on a mono pod with and without IS and have found no difference. I now tend to leave it on except when using a tripod.

Thanks Ron, its just I've heard people say on this forum even that IS lenses shouldn't be used with a monopod. Anyone else any experience or comments

[Archangel]

Re: POLL: How important is Image Stabilisation to you?

This doesn't appear to be a rumour. And this (final paragraph) suggests the findings were not the result of a bad sample...

Tim,

The article you posted states that the non IS version have a slight advantage when film used and there are no differeces in digital as of 2004 that the article or the test was conducted.

Here are some links with some new lenses IS and non IS tested.

For Nikon users here:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikkor_kit_lens_group_test/

For Canon users here:

http://www.cameralabs.com/features/Canon400D_lens_upgrade/

Out of interest, which lenses did you test? Any chance you could publish your methods and findings here..?

I have tested only the cameras I own that have a fixed and a fixed telescopic lens and haven't seen any difference in image quality with the IS switched ON or OFF.