Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

[Woolley]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

.

I don't understand that, and although I'm not a member of a drama group, I have a bit of experince in shooting shows.

Are you saying the stage lighting was so low you couldn't see the character's face ?

Trev

Just his face - but his skin is mid-tone - and a bit of rim lighting. To get any detail in the black clothing and in particular his hat I need a longer exposure than I'd like and there was no option other than hand-holding the camera. Without IS I couldn't have got an acceptable shot.

[mikep]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

I'm not going to add too much to all the above, but although I appreciate IS isn't really doing anything to help the result of a shot say at 1/1000, I find it useful at longer focal lengths, just to be able to frame the shot better! I.E. it helps me take the shot, rather than improve the result!

For the record, I thought this was a good thread, and worthwhile obtaining different perspectives. Thanks.

All the best, Mike.

[Michael.K]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

I have read -Don't ever buy a lens without IS, and -Don't ever buy a lens with it, that's why I am confused,

But I did read that a 70-200mm f/4 L lens is not weather sealed, but the IS verson is. also if you have shaky hands that's a problem with non-IS even on a monopod, I am no "Professional" only what I have read and understood on the users who own the non-IS wishing they got a IS verson because it helps even on a monopod or hand held, a IS verson gives good results.

Those who pooh-pooh the use of IS maybe are either not used to shooting in low light or always have a tripod on hand, but when you are traipsing around in the woods on a not-so-bright day, typically the most you want to pack is a monopod, and IS, is your friend

[briansquibb]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

Those who pooh-pooh the use of IS maybe are either not used to shooting in low light or always have a tripod on hand, but when you are traipsing around in the woods on a not-so-bright day, typically the most you want to pack is a monopod, and IS, is your friend

If you are walking in the woods - take the flashes or a travel tripod. My walkabout bag has always got at least 2 flashes + the ST-E2. Dark corners in woods can only be well photographed with flash or HDR or long exposure.

My walkabout lens are:

17-40 F4 L (no IS)
24-105 F4 L (with IS)
70-300 L (with IS)

I doubt if I ever really need the IS

However there are always people that need IS in exceptional circumstances. I see it being more of a crutch for most people for most of the time.

I feel the most useful IS is the type - panning IS where you are taking pictures at a slow shutter speed.

[EOS_Jim]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

i follow a Mantra I heard some time ago.

Natural Light Before Reflector
Reflector Before Flash
Flash as a last resort

This is generally where I am when shooting - although not all the time.......

It may be that you are shooting on a day where the light changes and one minute you are at 1/250th the nest you are at 1/125th. With IS you don't need to worry if you are shooting @ say 200mm - Without IS you will likely end up with blurry shots

I think we all agree it is useful and it's down to what and how you shoot. There is no right or wrong answer for this question.

I'd rather have it than not and you probably only realise that when you are using something like the 70-200f4L and the light is dim 9as it often is in this country) and you need to up the ISO to maintain a decent shutter speed. I used to own the 70-200 f4L and that was one reason why I sold it.

JD

[Michael.K]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

iI'd rather have it than not and you probably only realise that when you are using something like the 70-200f4L and the light is dim 9as it often is in this country) and you need to up the ISO to maintain a decent shutter speed. I used to own the 70-200 f4L and that was one reason why I sold it.
JD

You have just answer my question, that's why I would only buy a 70-200f/4L IS lens, and not a non-IS verson, IMO it is worth the extra money to have it. then not.

[briansquibb]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

You have just answer my question, that's why I would only buy a 70-200f/4L IS lens, and not a non-IS verson, IMO it is worth the extra money to have it. then not.

Why not go for the 70-200 f2.8 IS if you are worried about low light performance? Or even a 200 f2 with IS

Or a 580 EXII so you can take low light picture at iso100?

Or perhaps that is not the answer you want to hear?

If you feel that you will be shooting a lot in low light then the 70-200 F4 IS is probably the wrong lens

[EOS_Jim]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

I kind of agree that if you are shooting in low light the f4 IS may not be the correct lens (depends what it's being used for)

Regards the shooting at ISO100 with flash, 'm not a fan of using that (unless using in a studio like situation) For general images I disagree with Brian's point on that. Of course you can but if you want shoot like that but to make better images then that is probably not the way to go in my opinion (this is discussed on another thread so I'll leave that there).

The f2.8 could be a better lens to choose but again you are restricted to 1/200th shutter speeds or faster (hand held). If you are in dim light and you max the ISO then it stops there. With IS you will still get static subject sharp images down to 1/25th and below!

Really down to what you shoot.

Regards moving subjects, a shutter speed of 1/125th will probably freeze someone walking but if shot at 200mm camera shake will likely be a problem. the use of IS will help in situations like that. The f4L IS is a fabulous lens - very light and small - I use the 70-200 f2.8L IS. Big and heavy!

I'd recommend either - down to your budget and what you shoot though.

[MX5]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

Simple answer, rent the 4 versions of the 70-200, and go try in the environment you are going to work in.

Only 'you' can decide what you feel is best ... 'we' can drop hints but thats all.

One thing for sure ... the IS on my 18x50's works a treat

[briansquibb]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

Jim - look up high speed flash and you will see how fo handle more than 1/200 - and that is what I do. Also for moving objects use second curtain.

If you are using flash in the dark and there is no significant ambient you might as well use iso 100. I will be doing an outdoor shoot in a couple of weeks - I will post pictures following that. Look at the Canon site for more info on what flash can do - it shouldn't be dismissed as some inferior studio lighting nor used in the same manner, although there is some functional overlap

[EOS_Jim]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

Jim - look up high speed flash and you will see how fo handle more than 1/200 - and that is what I do. Also for moving objects use second curtain.

Sorry Brian maybe crossed thoughts? I didn't mention using flash at higher shutter speeds? The question is about low light. 2nd curtain is fine if you want to add some motion but still get a sharp image - IS doesn't really do that much for this type of shot though as the flash freezes the subject.

If you are using flash in the dark and there is no significant ambient you might as well use iso 100.

Yes I can see the benefit there.

I will be doing an outdoor shoot in a couple of weeks - I will post pictures following that. Look at the Canon site for more info on what flash can do - it shouldn't be dismissed as some inferior studio lighting nor used in the same manner, although there is some functional overlap

Yes absolutely I've seen some amazing studio quality images taken with small form flash guns. They are inferior in some ways and superior in others.

[briansquibb]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

I have just taken my camera and 2 flash down the garden and taken this picture of a primrose. I cant see any fast lens, with or without IS taking this picture

No IS, No pp except sharpening and resizing. Used stands and Stofen difusers

One flash left, one flash right about 1 meter high pointing at about 45 degrees off vertical

5dII, 70-300L@300, iso200, f11, 1/200 taken in near pitch dark at 21:08

[Woolley]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

But... flash is a different ball game and provides different light. It has to be set up, carried, supplied with batteries... and it's not the way I like to do it. Flash for me is a 'when required' tool and I'd usually prefer not to have it if avoidable. For much of my photography I'd rather travel light and catch the moment and sometimes that moment happens when it's dim. So IS can make the difference depending on your style, subject and carrying requirements.

[EOS_Jim]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

Wooley is quite right. There is no argument about flash freezing the subjet - In fact you could have lengthened the SS considerably and the image would still be sharp (albeit the light may have changed a bit)

Flash is great don't get me wrong. When required a brilliant way to get shots you would not otherwise get - with IS or not.

IS is no good in the dark. Large apertures are probably useless in the pitch dat too! Even an 85mm f1.2 will struggle in the "near pitch dark"! I'd say the £4k 200mmf2 will also be useless too....

[briansquibb]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

Let me sum up this thread.

Nathaniel was womdering whether IS was really necessary

This quickly turned into a debate about low light and whether IS was needed.

I put forward that flash as an option which is being rejected by some

Let me put forward the case that flash should always be part of your tool case as there are so many occasions when a touch of flash will improve your photo during all lights from bright sunlight to near dark. It was Jim that told me about flash in bright sunlight a year ago - I listened, learnt and developed from there - up till then I was only using the flash in low light.

Woolley has raised the issue of carrying the flash and setting up. Well that may be marginly true. A 580 and batteries weighs in at less than a 24-105L - so not exactly earth shattering. On the setting up front - well a little planning would avoid delay there - I can work out when the light is going so I put on the flash on the camera and the one I carry in my pocket (it has a foot on too). I often walk around with a flash in hand for street candids and use them during the day.

Woolley says that the the flash light is different - well if I hadn't told you that the primrose was taken at night I would be very surprised if anyone would have considered it being flashed. The light is the same at 5500k as the sun. Perhaps you are talking about the directional issues? Are there any on the primrose?

I would still say that IS is not necessary but just is there as an aid for that marginal light when the objects are not moving or on long hand held telephotos. I put forward the case that flash is far more beneficial for day to day use whereas the benefits of IS are the exception. Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion - I just ask that they keep an open mind to other techniques.

So for Woolley here is the situation that he wants to have - candid picture. An IS lens wouldn't help with this either - strictly a flash only picture. Shot straight into the sun. It was obvious that a flash was going to be needed so I had a flash in hand ready to go - just a question of lifting the camera to the eye and the hand with the flash and press the button - couldn't be quicker or simpler. You dont have to have a flash on a stand and umbrellas

Getting the moment is about planning ahead and anticipating what kit will be needed to grasp it.

5D2, iso 125, 1/125, f8, 135f2 no C&C needed on this photo - it is just to show flash. No pp has been done apart from resizing and sharpening. Looks sharp to me - a 135 at 1/125 and no IS and camera held one handed