Image-stabilisation, can you take a really sharp image using it.

discoman

discoman

Suspended / Banned
Messages
140
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Something I have been thinking about and that is can you take a really sharp image using it, or is the best you can get is good, if that makes sense.

No real reason for asking it apart from me just wondering.
 
yes. I can get sharp (at 12mp, not d800's 36) a good portion of the frames at 1/25th 200mm if I really need to, given a good stance, though I will pummel the shutter to get plenty of frames.
 
Last edited:
I'd say YES. IMVHO it's a Godsend and I wish every lens I owned had it. Failing that (I have Canon and Panasonic bodies :'() I'd like in body IS :love:
 
itsdavedotnet said:
yes. I can get sharp (at 12mp, not d800's 36) a good portion of the frames at 1/25th 200mm if I really need to, given a good stance, though I will pummel the shutter to get plenty of frames.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't "pummeling" the shutter add a great deal of movement? I assume by pummel you just mean fire off a load of shots? Incidentally, it works at 36MP too :) I can shoot at around 1/30th at 300 if I'm careful. That's not where it comes into it's own for me. It's when you're at a more normal 1/250th or so... things are literally tripod sharp all the time.
 
Last edited:
This is 1/6th second hand held with VC on the Tamron 17=50

7102849635_8b3a74beda_o.jpg
 
A 17-50 barely needs VC. It's on longer zooms you really get the benefit.

I've tested steady, sharp shots at 1/30, 200mm. The weight of a lens can help as much as the VR I think. A good heavy lens won't shift about as much as a lighter plastic lens, it's easier keep a heavy lens steady.
 
Cagey75 said:
A 17-50 barely needs VC. It's on longer zooms you really get the benefit.

I've tested steady, sharp shots at 1/30, 200mm. The weight of a lens can help as much as the VR I think. A good heavy lens won't shift about as much as a lighter plastic lens, it's easier keep a heavy lens steady.
Click to expand...

1/25th at 165mm with \\is on

8104957555_f03339174a_o.jpg
 
What I meant is, from 17-50, you can get away with slower shutter speeds anyway. It'll help for sure, but if you're wide, you don't need it so much as you would with a longer lens.
 
Cagey75 said:
What I meant is, from 17-50, you can get away with slower shutter speeds anyway. It'll help for sure, but if you're wide, you don't need it so much as you would with a longer lens.
Click to expand...

The Exif data on the Tamron shot shows 1/6th with the lens at 45mm so with a crop sensor thats 72mm,not sure that at either of those lengths I could hand hold as slow a speed as that without VC/IS
 
You will have more of a chance than with a longer zoom though. I had the non VC tamron and didnt feel i was missing stabilization. I now have the 24-70 nikon and feel same. The 70-200 on the other hand . . .
 
At 50mm on crop it's difficult to hand hold once the shutter speed starts to drop. Many people feel that focal Length=Time, ie 50mm=1/50 sec isn't adequate and I agree. I'm much happier at focal length x 1.5 and even happier at focal length x 2.

Of course if you only print small images or just casually view whole images on screen any shake may not be visible but once you print larger or view at larger sizes on screen you're more likely to see any shake.

So, my own personal opinion is the IS is needed at 50mm. I'd go further, I'd like it on all of my lenses of all focal lengths.
 
All these examples are as much about how steady your hands are compared to somebody else. IS will help everyone in some way, just proportionately.
 
Some really good answers, so thanks guys. Taking the answers one step forward, if you could get a really sharp image without is, would someone else be able to get the same sharpness by using is.
 
woof woof said:
At 50mm on crop it's difficult to hand hold once the shutter speed starts to drop. Many people feel that focal Length=Time, ie 50mm=1/50 sec isn't adequate and I agree. I'm much happier at focal length x 1.5 and even happier at focal length x 2.

Of course if you only print small images or just casually view whole images on screen any shake may not be visible but once you print larger or view at larger sizes on screen you're more likely to see any shake.

So, my own personal opinion is the IS is needed at 50mm. I'd go further, I'd like it on all of my lenses of all focal lengths.
Click to expand...

On a crop body, the crop factor needs to be taken into account - the rule of thumb (1/focal length = time) refers to 35mm, so Canon crop users need to multiply by 1.6 (or 1.3 for some higher end models IIRC) and Nikon crop users need to multiply by 1.5.

In my yoof, I could handhold a 50mm down to 1/15th with little problem - these days, I'm far happier at 1/60th - age does that to a man! Still plenty slow enough to achieve that speed with a decently fast lens and easier still when you can turn the ISO up to fairly silly levels before noise starts to be a problem! VR/IS etc adds weight and bulk to lenses, so I'm more than happy for anything up to 70mm to be without it - very glad my 70-300 does have it though!
 
Why does the crop factor need to apply? 200mm is 200mm on a crop camera or not.
 
I have 2 Sigma 70-200 lenses, one with OS and one without and the OS is invaluable to me especially with a 1.4x teleconverter and a crop sensor which makes it 147 - 420mm equivalent on full frame:)
 
L0rdMike said:
Why does the crop factor need to apply? 200mm is 200mm on a crop camera or not.
Click to expand...

But this isn't about focal lengths in isolation, it's also about movement, field of view and sensor size. A given amount of movement will be 'magnified' by a longer lens and will also be proportionately larger on a smaller sensor - if this wasn't the case, a hand-held shot with a bridge camera at '720mm equivalent' should be comfortably achieved at 1/130 (if such a speed could be set) and 1/4 second should be easily achievable at '24mm equivalent' - these figures based on a quick google of the specs of a FinePix S4500.
 
Last edited:
L0rdMike said:
Why does the crop factor need to apply? 200mm is 200mm on a crop camera or not.
Click to expand...

Very true but the angle of view on a crop has to be taken into account since the 1/FL rule of thumb applies to 35mm film cameras specifically. Hence, the rule of thumb as applied to crop sensors has to be modified to 1/FL x crop factor. Much as we'd all like to on occasion, ye cannae break the laws o' physics!
 
I'm lucky in being good at slow capture and my VR on the 70-200 is never used - I tested it loads when I first got it, and have a few times since, it makes no difference that I can see so its a shame I didn't buy the £600 cheaper non-VR :(

As there's really only any point using it with static subjects I'd rather go for a tripod if I had any concerns

Dave
 
Pookeyhead said:
Wouldn't "pummeling" the shutter add a great deal of movement? I assume by pummel you just mean fire off a load of shots? Incidentally, it works at 36MP too :) I can shoot at around 1/30th at 300 if I'm careful. That's not where it comes into it's own for me. It's when you're at a more normal 1/250th or so... things are literally tripod sharp all the time.
Click to expand...

How do you account for the Silver car being oof then @ 1/500 in your thread about exposure, which Incidentally you maintain is sharp :shrug: As for the OP`s question, I have seen pictures on here with and without IS, some are sharp some are not. All having used various settings, therefore you would have to conclude it is mostly down to technique.
 
DG Phototraining said:
I'm lucky in being good at slow capture and my VR on the 70-200 is never used - I tested it loads when I first got it, and have a few times since, it makes no difference that I can see so its a shame I didn't buy the £600 cheaper non-VR :(

As there's really only any point using it with static subjects I'd rather go for a tripod if I had any concerns

Dave
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth!

A decent tripod and head will be far better than any IS/OS/VR system can ever hope to be and the extra £600 for Dave's VR version of that 70-200 would pay for a very nice support system! I do use the VR on my 70-300, not only for shooting but also as a relatively low powered telescope! My 150-500 probably got more use as a telescope than it did as a photographic lens TBH.
 
Owning a Pentax which has inbody IS I can definitely say it's extremely useful at all apertures. When a tripod isn't available or feasable it can often make the difference between getting a shot or not, one of the features on modern DSLRs that is definitely worthwhile.:thumbs:

Simon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top