Any evidence for turning of IS on current gen lenses when "not needed"

[runnah]

I just turn it off because I don't need it.

 

[Derrel]

I think the mother might be turning her head, and the remainder of her person is pretty much still, and in balance or "under muscular tension:" due to the way she is posed crouching down like that. The head on the other hand, is on a nifty swiveling mechanism. I think this shot was tripped off as her head was in motion, however slight.

One can look up the specs on the oscillation rate of a Nikon FP Synch flash and see how rapidly it might fire, but the real issue is the delta between the ambient exposure and the flash exposure: at f/4 at whatever ISO Braineack used, that ambient exposure is pretty generous....and so high-intensity flash is going to be picked up and registered. I think you get what I mean...it's not like he shot at ISO 50 at f/16...this is with the lens at f/4 in bright, springtime lighting conditions.

 

[Braineack]

I typically don't end up uploading shots that exhibit it, so I not sure I have other samples, but I see the same without using flash.

I know what that lens can produce, so when I get shots like that I get sad.

But looking again it does look like i just buggered the focus on this one.

 

[Overread]

If I don't need it I turn it off.

1) IS takes a few moments to "spin up" during that period of time it will induce its own blur in a shot. This means that if you turn and go to take a shot fast and the IS hasn't had time to spin up it will cause the opposite of what you want it to do.

2) If you are using a shutter speed well over the recommended handholding speed for the lens you are using (and assuming good posture) the only bonus IS gives is a stable viewfinder picture. For 200mm or lesss that's not much of a problem. For 300mm and over - esp for heavier lenses (eg f2.8) I find that sometimes the added smooth motion of the viewfinder helps a lot with tracking a subject - of course the IS runs the whole time and so is spun up and ready.

3) I don't use IS if I'm on a tripod - there's simply no need. Why slow the process waiting for it to speed up (or spend your time holding the shutter half way to keep it spun up) if its not going to give you any bonus to your shot.

4) Most IS can't take slow shutter speeds on tripods. I did a whole series of "blurry waterfalls" and every one was blurry way beyond what it should be in the still areas. Cause was the IS. Yes it "should" detect the tripod but in slow shutter speeds it fails.

5) IS takes time to spin up - if you're on a tripod it won't disable till its spun up to detect the stability - again adding a delay and complicating factor into your shot with no gain.

 

[Derrel]

if VC was off (or shutter speed slower), that shot would look sharp enough to cut your face.

I can find other examples, but I've noticed that with higher than 1/500 shutter speeds and if I leave VC on, the image is never as sharp as without VC on--It has a weird motion blur look to the image.

I notice that the catchlights in the eyes look just a little bit strangely-shaped. The on-line image is not large enough to get a really clear look at them in really clear detail. I'm also aware that there has been some stuff written about how VR being on can affect lens bokeh, but I am also wondering is VC/VR/IS might also have some odd interaction with aspherical element lens designs. Comparing how her eyebrow area looks compared to the easter egg basket, the defocused are below looks "different" from the area on her brows...that looks blurred, smeared, odd to me. Can you see if the eye catchlights are perfect dots in other frames of that pose? It looks to me like the catchlights have three components to them, all very small, but the resolution of the sample image is not quite high enough to see them cathlights clearly enough to evaluate them with any certainty.

 

[fjrabon]

I really do appreciate all the replies, but it's kinda shocking to me that there doesn't seem to be any actual "scientific" studies of this, with A/B comparisons under controlled conditions.

 

[Overread]

Most studies were with previous gen IS. Far as I know the only huge step forward IS has taken is in the Canon 100mm macro IS which has a back/forward roll to its function. Otherwise far as I know newer IS systems are better; but not worlds better. Same tech but more advanced thus most of the previous elements still hold true.

 

[fjrabon]

Most studies were with previous gen IS. Far as I know the only huge step forward IS has taken is in the Canon 100mm macro IS which has a back/forward roll to its function. Otherwise far as I know newer IS systems are better; but not worlds better. Same tech but more advanced thus most of the previous elements still hold true.

Just trying to reconcile all the differing info though. Like I said, Canon's engineers specifically say that their IS should be left on with a tripod (to combat mirror close vibration) and at high speeds (to help with autofocus). When I asked our rep when it should be turned off, he basically said "only if you're doing mirror up, or shooting above 1/1000." With so much contradictory info out there, it'd be really nice to see some actual testing done. I really trust all you guys' info, but I also trust my old Canon rep and the manual.

 

[table1349]

I really do appreciate all the replies, but it's kinda shocking to me that there doesn't seem to be any actual "scientific" studies of this, with A/B comparisons under controlled conditions.

Doesn't surprise me that there are no studies on this. It's not like it will cure cancer or bring about world peace. Do what you want with it.

 

[fjrabon]

I really do appreciate all the replies, but it's kinda shocking to me that there doesn't seem to be any actual "scientific" studies of this, with A/B comparisons under controlled conditions.

Doesn't surprise me that there are no studies on this. It's not like it will cure cancer or bring about world peace. Do what you want with it.

I mean sure it's unimportant in the grand scheme, but there are roughly 29917284918177499172 tests on the ISO capabilities of the D810

 

[Braineack]

if VC was off (or shutter speed slower), that shot would look sharp enough to cut your face.

I can find other examples, but I've noticed that with higher than 1/500 shutter speeds and if I leave VC on, the image is never as sharp as without VC on--It has a weird motion blur look to the image.

I notice that the catchlights in the eyes look just a little bit strangely-shaped. The on-line image is not large enough to get a really clear look at them in really clear detail. I'm also aware that there has been some stuff written about how VR being on can affect lens bokeh, but I am also wondering is VC/VR/IS might also have some odd interaction with aspherical element lens designs. Comparing how her eyebrow area looks compared to the easter egg basket, the defocused are below looks "different" from the area on her brows...that looks blurred, smeared, odd to me. Can you see if the eye catchlights are perfect dots in other frames of that pose? It looks to me like the catchlights have three components to them, all very small, but the resolution of the sample image is not quite high enough to see them cathlights clearly enough to evaluate them with any certainty.

Yeah, the flash catch light is elongated.

here's another two in the series I took at f/5.6:

I still attribute this mostly to VC. Like I said, I've seen this before in shots without flash (HSS, HyperSynced, or normal).



The difference at 1:1 is significant --

 

[Calnago]

...I know that Canon's manual for the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II L lens specifically says that you should leave it on, even on tripods and high shutter speeds, as the lens's autofocus is designed to work with IS engaged and that they claim there is no benefit to turning it off anyway.

...

I have this lens and nowhere in the manual does it specifically say this. In fact on page 10 it states that when using a tripod under certain shooting conditions it may be better to turn IS off. It also says that for long (bulb) exposures that leaving IS turned on may introduce errors.

 

[sk66]

I've done extensive testing of VR using relatively current Nikon VR lenses (i.e. 70-200/2.8 VRII). If VR is "misused" (i.e. active mode when not needed, on a tripod, etc) it will definitely ruin an image. When used "correctly" (i.e. tripod mode when on a tripod, or VR with tripod sensing) it won't necessarily help/hurt. When used at higher SS's or with more stability (i.e. ~1/500, monopod) it *may* adversely affect an image, but it will be inconsistent and hard to discern from other potential causes (i.e. subject movement).

It is also relevant that the CIPA standard regarding VR is based upon averaging the results of 200+ images with any outliers discarded. And it is based on evaluating a postcard size image (~4x6) from a distance of 2.5ft... this is a VERY generous evaluation of "sharpness" and way less demanding than even the (arguably low) standard COC limit.

My ROT is to turn it off if not needed; and avoid "needing it" if at all possible.

 

[astroNikon]

I really do appreciate all the replies, but it's kinda shocking to me that there doesn't seem to be any actual "scientific" studies of this, with A/B comparisons under controlled conditions.

I've done alot of testing with my lenses .. A/B. But when I was done comparing I just deleted all the test photos.
For my 18-105 VR
and my recent 150-500 Bigma
but like I said .. I've just deleted them after reviewing them.
I'm now more curious why the Bigma seems to drains my battery when the camera is turned off, versus other lenses that don't.