Canon and image stabilization

[jm3]

I have the Sony A100 which has IS in the camera. The non IS lenses are defintely less expensive and you can choose between Minolta or Sony lenses to fit it. Anyway I'm no pro but I love my Sony.

 

[table1349]

I have the Sony A100 which has IS in the camera. The non IS lenses are defintely less expensive and you can choose between Minolta or Sony lenses to fit it. Anyway I'm no pro but I love my Sony.

I'm not bagging on your Sony, Sony, Pentax, Canon, Nikon and Fuji all make good cameras, however the following are B&H prices. This is comparing apples to apples for lenses. Yes they are top quality lenses from each manufacturer. The Canon and the Nikon have built in IS the Sony does not. Seems a little off to me.

Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens.....$1699.00

Nikon Zoom Telephoto AF VR Zoom Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8D G-AFS ED-IF Autofocus Lens (Vibration Reduction).....$1549.95

Sony SAL-70200G Zoom Telephoto AF 70-200mm f/2.8 APO G(D) SSM Autofocus Lens for Alpha & Minolta Maxxum Series.....$2299.95

Granted, not everyone is going to pay for that quality of lenses, but It makes me wonder at the quality for price when there is that kind of disparity in prices on very similar lenses.

 

[RacePhoto]

I have to disagree with this, in my experience, its useless for fast moving subjects (sports and action) , it can be very effective with slow moving subjects or shooting still subjects handheld. High ISO perfomance is better for action and sports than IS or the obvious, a faster lens. Just my opinion.

There is the mode 2, which provides stabilization in the direction the camera is moving, vice all directions. Can be helpful for panniing in one direction (cars), where slower shutter speeds are actually desired to show motion, but you want to capture the object being panned .

I personally think it's a nice feature and has saved many photos for me. I think of it as a tool to help improve my handheld shots where the subject is stationary or moving slow.

Consider the lens it's on in addition to the high ISO performance of the camera in question.

I agree. I was asking myself last weekend, if I have to shoot cars moving at over 100 mph, at 1/500th how much can the IS make a difference, when I'm panning anyway. Some days I wonder if the IS is actually trying to stabilize and making the pictures worse?

For someone else, mentioning that better glass, is more important, one might notice that most of the better Canon L lenses come with IS. So it's not much of a decision. It's already on the good lenses.

I figure that if I'm shooting low light for some other reason than sports, I'm going to be happy that I have IS available.

 

[lifeafter2am]

I guess it would depend on the sport. I know quite a few professional surf photographers, and a good number of them use IS on there longer (600mm or so) lenses.

I agree that if shooting in low light it can make a difference, but the noise reduction on my Canon is great, and I don't have too many problems shooting at 1600 ISO. I can see having it on one, maybe two of your lenses, but I still think it is just overkill to have EVERY lens have IS.

 

[DSLR noob]

Canon just released a newer version of the EF-S 18-55 3.5-5.6 kit lens with a 4 stop image stabilizer for an amazingly cheap $200.

 

[Don Simon]

I think that any camera in a given price range will perform about the same.

In saying this you are showing that you have more sense than most salesmen and about 90% of Internet users.

Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Olympus have been in the business of making lenses and cameras for many many years. Minolta were too and their heritage has been taken up by Sony who aren't exactly inexperienced when it comes to digital imaging. You can't really go too far wrong with any of these for a dSLR system. Of course there are differences in the technology... like Olympus using a different sensor size to everyone else, and Canon offering larger sensors which the others don't. But yes, put a lens of similar quality on a camera of similar price and no brand will magically produce a better image.

Each system has advantages that may be more or less important to any given individual... whether better performance at higher ISOs, better flash system, faster autofocus, IS in-lens, IS in-body, smaller cameras, larger cameras, whatever... we all have different priorities. For your current needs I can't see how any system would disappoint, and as you develop your skills and requirements each system will be evolving too. Investing in a system is obviously a big decision because of the amounts of money involved, but often it's taken too seriously. Honestly my advice would be to choose whatever looks right to you and then get on with the business of photography

 

[alrey]

What is your opinion on the Pentax line?

Excuse the poor lighting, alas all I have in my room is a puny tungsten lamp and I couldn't use my flash for obvious reasons.

These are all 100% crops from my K100D. I took 4 shots at each exposure/AS setting and uploaded the best one. The stock is a poster on my wall.

28mm - 1/8 second - f/3.5 - AS ON
http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/400/on28mm8qu2.jpg

28mm - 1/8 second - f/3.5 - AS OFF
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/7379/off28mm8ow9.jpg

28mm - 1/4 second - f/4.5 - AS ON
http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/2838/on28mm4lp8.jpg

28mm - 1/4 second - f/4.5 - AS OFF
http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/547/off28mm4sd6.jpg

300mm - 1/30 second - f/5.6 - AS ON
http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/4168/on300mm30dt1.jpg

300mm - 1/3o second - f/5.6 - AS OFF
http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/1862/off300mm30hs8.jpg

300mm - 1/15 second - f/5.6 - AS ON
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/7447/on300mm15bc4.jpg

300mm - 1/15 second - f/5.6 - AS OFF
http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/3876/off300mm15ds4.jpg


Also keep in mind these were the best out of 4 shots. Perhaps a better comparison is looking at the worst of a series of shots, in which case the AS wins by a long shot. A good example of this is the 1/15 exposure at 300mm; all 4 of the AS shots were pretty comparable, but I think I just got lucky with the non-AS one. The other 3 non-AS shots were almost unusable.

*shrug* I was bored.

 

[Groupcaptainbonzo]

If you want IS, then go for it. Although a good tripod is a lot cheaper and MUCH more effective. If you want good results then go for lens based IS.
I have an IS lens and it is very good. BUT. Not as good as a tripod. also you can use walls pillars, rocks, bean bags etc etc. (You get the picture...)

 

[carusoswi]

Apples to apples comparisons are ok, but, sometimes, non-apple options offer you greater benefit. I agree that any choice you make will afford you years of great and enjoyable picture taking. However, consider this: You could purchase a camera with in-body IS - get it with or without the kit lens. Then, purchase non-branded lenses to widen your range - and you would definitely get more range for less dollars, and at the long end of those lenses, IS will make a difference.

No question, a tripod will beat IS hands down - but, will you always have a tripod with you when a challenging shot presents itself? Leaning on walls or using posts, etc. will help, too, but IS will aid in that situation also.

Nikon states that their IS allows an advantage of 4-stops. Sony claim 3.5. I don't know about Pentax. But, there are times when just a couple of stops makes the difference between getting a shot worth viewing and one that you will want to delete.

I use the Sony A100. Left the kit lens in the box and attached a 28-300 mm hyperzoom that I bought for around $225. Don't know what they go for today, but I'm sure today's version of that lens from Tameron or Sigma is a heap less than $2200. It works well, and, in most cases, its shortcomings present only minor photographic problems, all of which, I have been able to fix in PS. If I feel like it, I can shop Ebay or B&H or NYCW for used Minolta glass, and all of it will be able to benefit from IS . . . and I can tell you, it definitely makes a difference in low light.

Good luck whichever way you go. Whatever you do, don't forestall your picture-taking indefinitely while you mull this decision. Make a choice, go for it, then, start snapping some shots.

Caruso

 

[alrey]

If you want IS, then go for it. Although a good tripod is a lot cheaper and MUCH more effective.

Actually I'd venture to say a good tripod is considerably more expensive, and much more effective. At least in the case of the Pentax IS system. In fact, most places seem to offer the K110D (no antishake) and the K100D (with antishake) at the same price, so you're getting IS for free.
Even if you go lens based, you can probably get a VR version of the same lens for about the same extra-cost as a good tripod.

Obviously, however, the tripod can be used with all your lenses, so if you want more than one stabilized lens it'll be cheaper to go with the tripod.
Also, there is no argument that the tripod is the most effective way to stabilize.

If you want good results then go for lens based IS.

I've yet to really see a review or side-by-side comparison that backs this up, beyond the initial inclination that, since lens based IS is considerably more expensive, it must be better. I'd love to see some reviews on the subject.
Here's one where in camera AS (on the Minolta Dimage A2) beats out the lens-based IS in the Sony DSC-H9:
http://www.neocamera.com/feature_stabilization_shootout.html

 

[ketan]

If you buy an IS lens then always it will try to stabilize the shot ? or you can switch off optionally. Like whoile shooting a racing car or some other such circumstance you would not wish to stabilize the image.
Most important IS versus nonIS price difference is about 100:180, is it worth?
Is there any site (other than the manufacturer) that gives side by side comparison of IS version versus Non-IS photos?
ketan

 

[Iron Flatline]

Lens-based IS can be turned off.

There are very few lens review sites. How lenses work is actually so far beyond most people's comprehension of physics so that there's virtually no way to review products like this in a consumer-friendly manner. You could talk about softness at the edges, chromatic aberation, potential back-focusing issues, but it would just confuse most buyers. It gets very geeky very quickly, and I have found that the only people who actually care about this stuff take surprisingly few pictures... if you know what I mean.

There ARE differences in lenses. Most people don't realize that if you take a bunch of lenses at (let's say) 50mm - be they prime lenses or zooms that cover that focal range set at 50mm - everyone of them is going to give a slightly different image. To some people (like me) Sharpness and Bokeh matter a lot. I have several 35mm prime lenses, each of which has a different look, and I use them for different types of shooting.

 

[carusoswi]

I have found that the only people who actually care about this stuff take surprisingly few pictures... if you know what I mean.

Good point. I was always amused by the techno-talk surrounding audio equipment, and always felt that unless I was just trying to stroke my ego, I should not pay good money for any features on any equipment if I could not discern the advantage via my own senses.

If concern for IS is holding back your purchase of equipment and your picture taking, I say, pick one or the other system and get going.

As for reviews, about the only sort of review that would matter to me would be a test where the two systems are compared against each other and against a system without IS in shooting subject matter where stabilization, if effective, should make a difference.


I think that would be simple enough.

Concerning comments that tripods are cheaper and more effective, that's probably true, but, only if you have a tripod with you, and only if you have time (and the situation allows you) to set one up.

There are venues where tripods are not allowed, and many situations where they aren't practical.

In low light situations, a flash is, perhaps, the best stabilizer of all. Unfortunately, it sometimes changes the shot in ways that are not desirable, or the scene is too fast for it to be effective, or flash photography is not permitted.

. . . and, again, if you want to call upon it, you have to have it with you.

Large format film cameras give an advantage in sharpness due to their larger image recording area. But they are inconvenient and heavy to carry around.

Personally, I am impressed with my IS, glad that my camera has it, appreciative of the fact that it works with any lens that will fit my camera body. There are situations when I want to shoot landscapes at dusk where I would have given up on my film camera unless I had a tripod. My A100 allows me to still get an acceptably crisp hand-held shot.

So, I like it.

Happy shooting.

Caruso

 

[Jon, The Elder]

I use IS lenses exclusively. A visit to my gallerys shows why.

IS can help you get shots you would have missed otherwise. Much depends on your subject and method of shooting. You always have the option of turning it off.

 

[neea]

The problem with IS is that it is the Must-Have buzzword in photography right now. But IS is like Teenage Sex - everyone's talking about it, few are actually doing it, and most of those doing it are actually doing it poorly.

I LOVE LOVE LOVE this explanation!!!! I will have to remember it!

I have a Canon 300mm lens with IS.
The IS wasn't my choice. My bf baught it for my birthday and thought 'may as well' (that or the salesman was very good lol).

I use it rarely and haven't really put it to the 'test' yet. It drains batteries like of a son-of-a.. if you forget to turn it off though.
The few times I have used it I've noticed a difference. I could've also used a tripod I'm sure but sometimes lugging an extra piece of equipment through the bush just isn't practical for me.

It all comes down to personal preference!