Image Stabilisation

gman

gman

Suspended / Banned
Messages
11,100
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
Yes
Was reading an article in Digital Photographer about Image Stabilisation which has got me thinking.

It says the two main types in DSLR's are either body based or lens based, Canon and Nikon primarily being lens based.

Has anyone got any experience of both as I'm toying with the idea of another lens but the IS ones seem a lot more expensive and wonder if it's worth it? The problem I have is that I'll be photographying a lot of demolition work and pretty much need a 250 or 300mm lens and my current one doesn't have IS. As you may guess, I don't fancy getting close to a 100 ton excavator but as there is a lot going on I can't really use a tripod either!

A Panasonic FZ7 that I had used it quite well at full zoom but the EOS400 seems to handle noise quite well at high ISO's so would it be better to increase the ISO instead of opting for a lens with IS?

Must admit, I got a fright when I got the EOS400 presuming it had IS built in when it didn't! :D
 
The general consensus tends to be that lens stabalisation is better as it's tailored to the focal length of the lens and body stabilisation is a one size fits all solution and may not offer enough movment to compensate at very long focal lengths. I've never used either so don't have a personal opinion.

People have managed without IS perfectly well for a long time so provided your prepared to work on yr technique and except that some shutter speeds just are not an option then you won't need IS, having said that I can also see the massive advantages it brings especially when you want to just quickly grab a shot and not faff about with the tripod etc it also gives you that extra bit of creative freedom.
 
I have 70-200 with IS (in lens)
the effect when it kicks in is amazing
allows you to work 2-3 stops slower
i.e. instead of 1/200 at 200mm, 1/100 or even 1/60 is quite feasible
 
Does make a huge different imo. Depends if you need it tbh though, do you usually find yourself underexposing to get a sharp photo? If you do then it might be worth investing in. I've had pretty good results at say 70mm even down to like 1/20th and lower using VR :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top