Is Image Stabilisation vital for smooth hand-held recording?

thezeronumber

thezeronumber

Suspended / Banned
Messages
29
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm getting a Canon 60D soon, to satisfy both my photography and videography needs, but have found lens hunting to be a tricky process. In the Talk Equipment section people helped me narrow down my original "what lens to buy" question to a "what general zoom" one, but i've hit a dead end. The Tamron f2.8 17-50mm (equivalent 27.2-80mm) was highly praised for quality and after a little reading around it was hard to resist. I will be shooting indoors sometimes so the wider focal length and faster aperture would be brilliant, not to mention the shallow DoF effect. A few hours away to putting in an order, brand new for £265, it then hits me that i was neglecting the video side of things because this lens doesn't have VC (Vibration Control). I looked up the VC version of the lens and was pleasantly surprised to find it at a mere £60 more for £325, but joy soon turned to disappointment when i found out the image quality had been reduced for one reason or another. All the other general zooms are either lacking some form of Image Stabilisation, have it but costs a vast amount more, or the aperture is way too slow for low-light use. For example, the Canon f2.8 17-55mm IS costs over £700, roughly 2.5x the price of the Tamron. That's a pretty shocking increase and not something i can afford.

So i started questioning if Image Stabilisation is really necessary for hand-held shooting. Let's say you're invited out to the park with some mates, so you grab the DSLR, head out, and start taking videos in a typical and average going-out situation. Stabilisation helps but is it vital to capture a smooth image? Can i stand still and record well? Can i walk and record well? Or do i need to bite my lip and do some serious saving for the Canon f2.8 17-55mm IS/sacrifice quality and go with the Tamron f2.8 17-50mm VC? I'm not typically going to lug around a steady-cam with every trip as it's unrealistic and cumbersome (plus i don't own one) so i'm trying to avoid that where possible. Same goes for Tripods and post-processing because that can degrade the quality from what i've seen and it's only effective to a certain degree.

Any advice, comments, help, experiences?
 
Last edited:
I don't see how in-camera stabilization is going to solve smooth video problems. It is just can't handle the jolts from walking around and shooting. If a tripod or steadicam is too much of a burden for you, then you'll just have to live with applying a steadicam filter in post processing or live with your shaky video.

I have a steadicam Merlin. You can handhold it easily. It folds up nicely for stowing and really does work. The big thing about it is even though you may have movement in your video, it is smooth and easy on the viewer's eyes.

When I was first testing the steadicam out, I broke the golden rule of steadicam work. Always watch where you're going. I was walking backwards while shooting and stepped of a short run of stairs. I was stumbling and fighting to keep my balance and not crash and burn in a fall. I made it. When I reviewed the video of that instance, it looked like I floated down those stairs. It was remarkably amazing.
 
Last edited:
I'm not after a solution, just something to take the edge off. I was wondering (questioning?) if built-in stabilisation is going to help to that extent or if i should save money and not bother, maybe putting the cash into an alternative later down the road.

As much as the Merlin impresses me and exceeds my desires, i cannot warrant the £600+ purchase. The cheaper options are questionable in effectiveness because there are so many out there to choose from, be it the Merlin look-a-likes or a plethora of other designs. Might be something worth making another topic about when i need to. Heard of people making their own steadicams but i'm not sure i could trust myself with doing such a thing without prior experience to the materials used, such as metal piping and joints.
 
Last edited:
it really makes a massive difference, I would go for the tamron and sacrifice the image quality- don't be a pixel peeper :)

http://vimeo.com/12843826


IS will only help you if you're standing still, if you're moving you will obviously need a steadicam.

Personally i'd go for the tamron IS.

Tripods have a bad rep, but a small tripod is no burden to carry round. I use a giottos vitruvian and it is so small it fits in my satchel. Doubles as a semi steady-cam too- love it
 
You could use a mono pod and get better results most likely both when handhold in the air and supported on the ground. I'd think that should be easy to carry around.
 
Thanks for the link on stabilisation examples, that really put things into perspective and i never knew how much effect it really had until i saw that video. Usually i would agree on not being a pixel-peeper but the differences are fairly clear on typical shots even without a large crop. The centre performance remains fairly sharp although the non-VC is still better (this is something you need to look closely for so not a huge deal and this is what i call pixel-peeping), but as you move to the edge of the image it all goes very soft and a bit hazy, like it's been smudged. I can understand the corners being poor but the difference in quality between the lenses is noticeable as you reach halfway between the centre and border; if you're shooting with the rule of thirds in mind then the subject is going to fall into those areas where the quality starts to make a difference.

I think i may go for the non-VC version, research some steadicams and hopefully find a small yet reliable one to take on general outings with friends.

Thanks for the help everyone.
 
Last edited:
Makes quite a difference.

Check out this video of a test using a 550D & 24-105L (with and without IS)

It's fairly tongue in cheek but the results are clear esp if you jump to the example at 5mins 55 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-ARFgNCeAo
 
Last edited:
That's just making things even more confusing for me. :P Thanks for the link though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top