Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

[MX5]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

All these things have their place be it IS, Flash, Multiple Flash, Studio lighting, tripods/monopods ... you name it.

As conditions dictate (and what I'm carrying) I'll make use of whatever is available.

<rant>Sometimes I get the feeling from others that 'real men don't use IS', or 'real men don't use flash', or 'real men don't drive FWD cars', etc etc.</rant>

Naturally we use what we have and require on the day. IS has it's place, as does Flash or fast lenses or super telephotos, etc the key thing is knowing when (and how) to best use these technologies

[EOS_Jim]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

MX5 has it spot on.

Brian- Maybe I'm not saying it right but I 100% agree that flash has its place - But so does IS and at appropriate times will give a more pleasing image than flash will and at others it wont.

All the pints made are very valid. IS on its own has two purposes.

1. Panning - which you showed well a few threads back.

2. In low light (not really dark) without flash. In low light shooting slow moving to static subjects you can get sharp images up to 3 or 4 stops slower than normal. It's a simple concept that doesn't need obscured by other options. You could use a faster lens, you could use flash but if you don't have that or don't want to use that then IS will assist.

An example relevant to Nathaniel is that I would doubt he'd want to add his flash onto his camera along with the 70-200 f4L because suddenly that combo becomes quite heavy.

Nothing said is not relevant there are times when all the above can be used - But flash is not a replacement for IS. Flash is different - can be used to good effect as well as bad and the situations for each are different. It's down to how you shoot.

JD

[colin C]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

If you only have the one tool, you have to use that.

If you have a full toolbox, you have choices and solutions for different conditions.

Colin

[EOS_Jim]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

If you only have the one tool, you have to use that.

If you have a full toolbox, you have choices and solutions for different conditions.

Colin

That sums it up

[djguk47]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

If you only have the one tool, you have to use that.

If you have a full toolbox, you have choices and solutions for different conditions.

Colin

and this is why we spend all the housekeeping money each month so we can have a choice of different tools to do a cracking job....

[Michael.K]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

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

No it's not the wrong lens because I would only use it in daytime, if I had one, and i was only making a point about walking in the woods, maybe the f2.8 IS will be a better len in both daytime and low light, but it cost more than a f/4 IS. and I wouldn't want to carry a long lens around all day and night, I just use a 24-105L IS lens for night shoot.

[Trevoreast]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

I haven’t got IS on any of my lenses since I parted company with my mint condtion 24-105. I would like to have to IS on them all.
I would always carry a flashgun, like with the IS you can always turn it off; if not required.
Trev

[Woolley]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

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.

I appreciate what you're saying, but flash wouldn't help with this one and IS certainly did!



Flash suits certain styles and not others. You're comfortable with flash and acheive excellent results. I prefer not to on the whole. The weight comment is slightly disingenuous - the flash may not be heavier than the 24-105, but I can take a picture with the lens and no flash, but definitely not the other way around so not carrying it is a saving.

So my summing up - IS isn't necessary, but it's one solution to some challenges. Flash is another, wide apertures and high ISO another. Or even all of the above if you so wish.

[Trevoreast]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

I appreciate what you're saying, but flash wouldn't help with this one and IS certainly did!

Hi Wooley, Isn’t that motion blur on the hat ?
IF so; you’ve shown the strength and weakness of IS with one shot.

I like the shot by the way, It looks like a great location too.

Trev

[briansquibb]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

Let me clear this up - I am not against IS - said quite clearly that it does have its place - "the benefits of IS are the exception" - but I would suggest that flash has more use for the majority - once they get over the 'I cant do it' syndrome. Flash is easy to use most of the time.

As for the weight my backback weighs close on 10kg so a 700g flash is not noticable - especially when you consider that I am not carrying heavy f2.8 lens. The difference between the 70-300L and the 70-200 f2.8 is the weight of a flash.

[Woolley]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

Hi Wooley, Isn’t that motion blur on the hat ?
IF so; you’ve shown the strength and weakness of IS with one shot.

Quite right. Shutter speed 1/6th sec, ISO1600 so it was significantly dark. Shot was a grab as I passed by else I'd have underexposed it to freeze the hat.

I like the shot by the way, It looks like a great location too.

Lindos, Rhodes. On our way out to dinner on a very hot night. Minimum equipment, just the camera and single lens.

[EOS_Jim]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

Cracking shot Wooley

There isn't really an argument here. It's all about the shot you want. Sime may use a tripod to get that shot wooley but I think the motion adds to the image - albeit Trev is right it does show the greatness of IS and its limitations in one shot.

Also agree with Brian that flash probably does have more uses but also some retrictions.

Repeating - use the correct tool for the look you want.

[DrJon]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

I think it would be fair to say there is a range of opinions on this one. Personally I've got some shots with IS I wouldn't without and when it's useful to have isn't always predictable, so I find it handy in a number of lenses (why not). Plus flash can't light up vast areas in low light. Perhaps we should call this one a day rather than arguing into the next millennia? Or we could carry on...

[briansquibb]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

I would not suggest that flash was the only alternative to IS - in fact it is only a different way to take the picture. I often use HDR instead of IS - using a tripod. IS is only a way of stabilising the camera for slow shutter speeds - there are several alternatives - tripod, monopod, beanbag, walls, chairs, other people's shoulders - even leaning against a wall with the left shoulder provide a significant amount of support.

I agree with Jon- it is a nice to have sometimes

[EOS_Jim]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

I would not suggest that flash was the only alternative to IS - in fact it is only a different way to take the picture.

As agreed.

I often use HDR instead of IS - using a tripod.

Another great use of IS is that you don't "need" a tripod under certain conditions. HDR is slightly different in that the images should be the same and your hands rather than IS are the limiting factor there.

IS is only a way of stabilising the camera for slow shutter speeds - there are several alternatives - tripod, monopod, beanbag, walls, chairs, other people's shoulders - even leaning against a wall with the left shoulder provide a significant amount of support.

The thing is that you don't always have these options.

I agree with Jon- it is a nice to have sometimes

So what has all this been about? We've all said that now :)