POLL: How important is Image Stabilisation to you?

[lumix]

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

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

Stephen I'm not saying this is conclusive, just that even with a mono pod my hands are probably still shacking. As Ian has said, makes a grabbed shot a usable shot.
May I ask how an inbuilt stabiliser can affect the quality of a lens. After all there are no optics involved with this type. Just a moving censor.

[Stephen]

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

Stephen I'm not saying this is conclusive, just that even with a mono pod my hands are probably still shacking. As Ian has said, makes a grabbed shot a usable shot.
May I ask how an inbuilt stabiliser can affect the quality of a lens. After all there are no optics involved with this type. Just a moving censor.

Mmmm, I'm not sure anyone has said that a built in camera IS system affects the quality of a lens. Certainly I've spoken all along about lens IS systems. I'd have to say I'm not sure how the ones in the Panasonic cameras work, but if they are built into the sensor then perhaps this has something to do with it being OK on a Monopod. I'm afraid I really don't know the answer

[Bearface]

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

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.

Absolutely true, although (a) this was carried out using a Canon 1Ds (mk1) in 2004* and (b) it nevertheless demonstrates that differences in resolution can be experienced dependant on whether you use the IS or the non-IS version of that lens. The test results sugested that no discernable differences in terms of resolution could be determined when using the 1Ds, but this didn't appear to be conclusive.

*I owned a Canon 11.1MP 1Ds Mk1 in 2005 and for sheer detail and image quality, it didn't come close to my 12.8MP 5D, so the results of a 2007 test could well have been different when using the IS lens. Probably more so if they'd had a 16.7MP 1Ds Mk2...

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.

As your comments ("As far as image quality is concerned, yes there are rumours spread around different forums that IS degrades quality..." and "To me they remain only rumors as my tests didn't show such thing...") referred directly to my earlier post, which itself was specifically discussing IS in terms of DSLRs and lenses, I'm not exactly clear how your experiences / tests with fixed lens compacts would serve to challenge my points.

DSLR lenses are optically more complex than their non-IS cousins (which is obviously where the differences in optical quality come from...), whereas in a digital compact it's the sensor which moves, presumably meaning that the lenses are all but unaffected...........which surely means that resolution should be consistent regardless of whether the IS function is enabled or not?

[Stephen]

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

DSLR lenses are optically more complex than their non-IS cousins (which is obviously where the differences in optical quality come from...), whereas in a digital compact it's the sensor which moves, presumably meaning that the lenses are all but unaffected...........which surely means that resolution should be consistent regardless of whether the IS function is enabled or not?

Well it makes perfect sense to me

[Bearface]

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

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

The cheque's in the post

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

Yeah, I totally agree (heck, that's.........twice in a row...) and of course my views on IS only reflect how I work, as well as my own experiences with IS-equipped lenses. Not for a second do I want to suggest that people are wasting their time with IS, because clearly there are an awful lot of very satisfied people out there who use it daily.

No doubt there'll come a time when I have no choice.........unless of course I steadfastly refuse to part with my ancient 2004+ vintage non-IS lenses and the old-style DSLRs which still support them. In fact, that kinda sounds like me...

[Archangel]

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

Absolutely true, although (a) this was carried out using a Canon 1Ds (mk1) in 2004* and (b) it nevertheless demonstrates that differences in resolution can be experienced dependant on whether you use the IS or the non-IS version of that lens. The test results sugested that no discernable differences in terms of resolution could be determined when using the 1Ds, but this didn't appear to be conclusive.

The advantage of non-IS lenses when film used is in terms of slight better resolution over IS lenses.
In your initial statement you stated "sharpness" advantage and not "resolution" advantage, which is not the case.

As your comments ("As far as image quality is concerned, yes there are rumours spread around different forums that IS degrades quality..." and "To me they remain only rumors as my tests didn't show such thing...") referred directly to my earlier post, which itself was specifically discussing IS in terms of DSLRs and lenses, I'm not exactly clear how your experiences / tests with fixed lens compacts would serve to challenge my points.

DSLR lenses are optically more complex than their non-IS cousins (which is obviously where the differences in optical quality come from...), whereas in a digital compact it's the sensor which moves, presumably meaning that the lenses are all but unaffected...........which surely means that resolution should be consistent regardless of whether the IS function is enabled or not?

Challenge which points?

Tim,

IS sophistication and technology does not involve any sensor movement in any camera, from the smallest compact to the biggest DSLR. CCD's never move.

As you understand, I cannot continue this discussion any further when you are not aware of the IS Technology and just go by guessing or assuming and on top of that using expressions like "challenging your points".
Besides that the thread clearly refers to IS in general and not only in DSLRs.

Fixed lens long zoom range cameras use (OIS)....a gyroscope...blah, blah, blah....
(EIS) is a different IS for small pocket compacts and doesn't include CCD movement either.

[lumix]

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

Mmmm, I'm not sure anyone has said that a built in camera IS system affects the quality of a lens. Certainly I've spoken all along about lens IS systems. I'd have to say I'm not sure how the ones in the Panasonic cameras work, but if they are built into the sensor then perhaps this has something to do with it being OK on a Monopod. I'm afraid I really don't know the answer

Just to clear things up the Panasonic dose use an optical system where the last element moves. IS sophistication and technology does not involve any sensor movement in any camera, from the smallest compact to the biggest DSLR. CCD's never move. George I think you will find that some cameras do have a moving censor.

[Pol]

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

George I think you will find that some cameras do have a moving censor.

The K10D has a sensor-shift sytem.

Pol

[coupekid]

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

The K10D has a sensor-shift sytem.

Pol

As does the Pentax Optio A10.

[Ian]

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

DSLR lenses are optically more complex than their non-IS cousins (which is obviously where the differences in optical quality come from...), whereas in a digital compact it's the sensor which moves, presumably meaning that the lenses are all but unaffected...........which surely means that resolution should be consistent regardless of whether the IS function is enabled or not?

Ah, Tim - that's incorrect in most compacts with a mechanical IS system. Most (Canon, Panasonic, Kodak, Samsung (I believe), for example), use a moving lens element, not a moving sensor. Most moving sensor IS cameras are DSLRs.

Ian

[Ian]

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

Oh dear, both you and Tim need to do your homework before debating

Bearface replied: Hey, I know next to nothing about compacts, but then I don't believe that we were debating them in any case - they were just referred to briefly . Actually I'd remembered the Minolta A1 which I'm pretty sure did have a moving sensor?

And Tim is wrong in assuming compacts using moving sensor IS technology (most do not).

Ian

Bearface replied: But some do, right? Like I said, compacts are well outside my area of knowledge..............technology is just a big, scary blur to me. Stephen'll tell you that

[Bearface]

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

The advantage of non-IS lenses when film used is in terms of slight better resolution over IS lenses.

Yeah, we've already established that . However can you state catergorically that a modern (2007) hi-res DSLR wouldn't be similarly affected? In the 2004 test, they used a 1Ds, a camera which in image-quality terms is bettered significantly by both the newer 1Ds Mk2 and the 5D..........hence my conjecturing in previous posts.

In your initial statement you stated "sharpness" advantage and not "resolution" advantage, which is not the case.

I referred to forum discussions and reviews, in which all manner of lens / camera attributes relating to IS/non-IS have been discussed, sharpness being one of the most common. Plus, sharpness in an image surely comes from resolved detail and is therefore directly governed by resolution..?

Challenge which points?

Your initial post in this thread clearly challenged my comments about IS in lenses and how it has been seen to affect resolution / image quality / sharpness in certain cases. I even quoted elements of your post to remove any doubt about this..............you said that all you were aware of was rumours and that your own tests (which weren't even conducted using DSLRs... ) disproved this theory. It's all there in your own posts...

Tim,

IS sophistication and technology does not involve any sensor movement in any camera, from the smallest compact to the biggest DSLR. CCD's never move.

George........you're wrong. CCDs do move.........and I'm not any kind of expert on the mechanics of these things, as you claim to be...

As you understand, I cannot continue this discussion any further when you are not aware of the IS Technology...

Oooops, I'll bet you're wishing you hadn't said that. After all, even a poorly-informed technophobe like me knew that CCds do in fact move in certain compacts and DSLRs. And it isn't particlularly new technology, either...

... and just go by guessing or assuming and on top of that using expressions like "challenging your points".
...

I've quoted and re-quoted precisely how and when you tried to challenge the points I made earlier. Unfortunately history has demonstrated that even when faced with the cold, hard facts which disprove your claims or counter-claims you remain resolutely opposed to acknowledging them and / or backing down. I'm just waiting to see how you try to justify your apparent lack of knowledge of moving CCds...

Besides that the thread clearly refers to IS in general and not only in DSLRs.

Yup, it does. Thing is, it wasn't the thread that you dismissed as "rumours", it was my comments. And I was ONLY discussing DSLRs and lenses, because that's what I use. Exclusively...

Fixed lens long zoom range cameras use (OIS)....a gyroscope...blah, blah, blah....
(EIS) is a different IS for small pocket compacts and doesn't include CCD movement either.

No offence George, but if I need technical information relating to these subjects, I'll get it from a proven source. Thanks all the same.

[lumix]

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

Just for the record, I owned one of the first optical stabilized cameras a Sony Camcorder. I later purchased a Panasonic, who at the time favoured the oversize CCd system that allowed the image to be stabilized electronically. No sure how that was supposed to work but the later was never as good as the Sony optical system. Panasonic now use the optical system. All this was 20 odd years ago so it's a well proven and tested system that we now enjoy on digital cameras.

[Archangel]

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

Sorry, I couldn't reply earlier, but I was on a business trip.
Let's see now what I wrote that some people found it wrong.


"IS sophistication and technology does not involve any sensor movement in any camera, from the smallest compact to the biggest DSLR. CCD's never move."

I repeat, CCDs never move. They are fixed sensors attached to platforms or else.
"Movement" can be done intentionally or accidentally and can be continuous, sudden or else.

Shifting is done only intentionally by an external force and in the case of these CCDs that use that approach coming form the Minolta 5D/7D series.

So CCDs, don't "move",they only "shift" in a fraction of time after a trigered signal.

Also IS sophistication and Technology includes, motion detection, compensation calculation and finally shifting.
So to say that a IS system includes sensor movement (when shifting is the correct terminology, that implies different actions compared to movement) it is not precise or accurate.


"Fixed lens long zoom range cameras use (OIS)....a gyroscope...blah, blah, blah...."

Do I mention here "fixed lens long zoom telescopic" cameras? I only wrote and replied for the "fixed lens long zoom cameras". So any relation of my writings to the example of the Sony R1 or other is vague.


"(EIS) is a different IS for small pocket compacts and doesn't include CCD movement either."

Does Pentax Optio A10 use this system, that some of you implied?
I only spoke here for Electronic Image Stabilizer, something that the A10 doesn't use.
While I like to be precise into what I'm writing, some don't seem like they pay the proper attention into my writings, or maybe is that "foreign language" thing again.
I really don't see where I'm wrong...maybe I'm too precise?
Also in all precise reviews there is nowhere stated "sensor movement".

[Archangel]

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

No offence George, but if I need technical information relating to these subjects, I'll get it from a proven source. Thanks all the same.

Tim,

No offense either.
I will continue to get my technical information straight from the development labs and use the right sub-technical terminology for it.