Do I really Need IS?

[Bifurcator]

I think this quote from my thread on "The next major step" makes a lot of sense:



I admit that I hadn't thought of this before, but after reading, it makes perfect sense to me.

Well, in-camera IS is scientifically and measurably superior. It also happens to be less of a rip off for the perspective customers - This thread is a great example of that with the price of an entire new camera just for one lens's IS. For example I get a 4-stop advantage from my 5 year old Minolta bridge camera. That's what it's advertised as and that's what I get. :thumbup: The A300/350 were an improvement on the original system and the A700 claims best in the industry - and I believe it - it's a really kewl system! There are no physics that I know of that would make rotating a lens on X and Y (which is limited) significantly better or worse than moving the sensor plane (which is also limited - but less so). In fact there is allot that would suggest much more sluggish response times and more battery drainage. Any camera with either a live view or an EVF will be able to show the IS in real time - mine does. I turn that feature off though as I don't like seeing the stabilized image. I want to know exactly where I'm pointed at any given moment. It makes me feel better about getting the shot too and builds confidence in the system.

http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1335122&postcount=4


.

 

[Alex_B]

I hate tripods too, they are a pain to lug around all the time.

But even though I do have IS in most of my lenses, I cannot live without a tripod

 

[Mike_E]

Well, in-camera IS is scientifically and measurably superior. It also happens to be less of a rip off for the perspective customers - This thread is a great example of that with the price of an entire new camera just for one lens's IS. For example I get a 4-stop advantage from my 5 year old Minolta bridge camera. That's what it's advertised as and that's what I get. :thumbup: The A300/350 were an improvement on the original system and the A700 claims best in the industry - and I believe it - it's a really kewl system! There are no physics that I know of that would make rotating a lens on X and Y (which is limited) significantly better or worse than moving the sensor plane (which is also limited - but less so). In fact there is allot that would suggest much more sluggish response times and more battery drainage. Any camera with either a live view or an EVF will be able to show the IS in real time - mine does. I turn that feature off though as I don't like seeing the stabilized image. I want to know exactly where I'm pointed at any given moment. It makes me feel better about getting the shot too and builds confidence in the system.

Sorry Bifurcator but the end of the lens is where the movement is and where the stabilization should be (imho).

Besides if the VR/IS gives out on a lens you just put on another lens. If the sensor vibro-thingy gives out it's highly unlikely that it will quit when the sensor is in it's rest position. Go ask Murphy!

 

[Bifurcator]

Sorry Bifurcator but the end of the lens is where the movement is and where the stabilization should be (imho).

OK, What are you basing that opinion on?

Besides if the VR/IS gives out on a lens you just put on another lens. If the sensor vibro-thingy gives out it's highly unlikely that it will quit when the sensor is in it's rest position. Go ask Murphy!

Hehehe...

 

[LuckyStarPhotography]

I haven't seen anything VR/IS can do that a decent photog can't do with a monopod. Plus, a monopod gives you a great walking stick.

LWW

I've tried one and while it is definitely better than a tripod, I still don't like it. I guess it's just something wired differently on the photography side of my brain.

I do have to get more familiar with it though because there are times that even with an IS lens it is essential and I SHOULD be using it at those times.

 

[Village Idiot]

The IS stays on pretty much all the time on my 70-200. I do turn it off when I'm doing modelling work.

I mean, being able to a mostly blur free shot at 1/10 shutter speed shooting at 70mm is definitely worth it.

 

[Dubious Drewski]

I believe that IS/VR/Whateveryourbrandcallsit is for the most part a needless luxury. There are applications for which it is very useful, but for 95% of the time, it serves no useful function.

Maybe 95% of your shooting doesn't require it, but most other photographers benefit from it. For instance, you don't always want to shoot wide open with your f2.8. Sometimes, you need f8 or f11 for a deeper focus. Sometimes, you're in low-light areas, like indoors. Sometimes, you want to stick to iso200 and below at any given cost. Sometimes there are unforeseen circumstances where IS would have been vital to the shot. "Needless luxury" is such an incorrect judgment, it unsettles me to see you type that. If that's what you think about it, it makes me wonder if you ever push the envelope.

EDIT: I'm sometimes quite aggressive with my opinions. Sorry for insulting you.

...how many good tripods & heads can you buy for what you'd save buying non VR lenses vice their more expensive counterparts. As well, given the comparitive delicacy of the components that make up a VR system, it seems something that could easily be damaged when lenses are getting hard use.

Yes, tripods save you money, but you can't often use them, depending on what you're shooting.

I shot a wedding last weekend with a 20D and my K10 around my neck, both at iso1600 and with apertures wide open and I was still having to shoot at 1/30th to 1/90th. Flash was not permitted. There was no time for tripods. IS saved my butt with both cameras.

We may see more in-camera IS because the market demands it, but anyone with a rudimentary sense of physics knows that it's a crap solution. A 600mm lens requires a different solution than a 35mm lens.

I apologize for this, but you don't know what you're talking about. Cameras with in-body stabilization know the focal length of the lens that is mounted, and they adjust the performance of the mechanism accordingly. You can see this when you put a vintage lens on a Pentax. The body can't communicate with any really old lens, so it asks the user what the focal length of the lens is, so that the anti-shake can work as accurately as possible.

I concede that the results show that in-body is still not as accurate as in-lens, but it's a miniscule difference. And at such a dramatically reduced cost, the benefits are sufficient. Not to mention it still does a damned good job, giving you a consistent 3-stop advantage over anyone not using it.

 

[Alex_B]

Maybe 95% of your shooting doesn't require it, but most other photographers benefit from it. For instance, you don't always want to shoot wide open with your f2.8. Sometimes, you need f8 or f11 for a deeper focus. Sometimes, you're in low-light areas, like indoors. Sometimes, you want to stick to iso200 and below at any given cost. Sometimes there are unforeseen circumstances where IS would have been vital to the shot. "Needless luxury" is such an incorrect judgment, it unsettles me to see you type that.

IS can always be replaced by a sturdy tripod. Hence it is luxury. Full stop.

But it is not needless in that sense, that it is nice to have! That means you not not need to lug a tripod around all the time. So if you can afford it, go for it.

Cars are luxury, you can walk, use public transport. Still i would not call them needless luxury in today's society either.

 

[Alex_B]

I apologize for this, but you don't know what you're talking about. Cameras with in-body stabilization know the focal length of the lens that is mounted, and they adjust the performance of the mechanism accordingly.

but technically, the mechanism will have to be a compromise if it has to serve 11 mm and 600mm lenses alike. The amplitude of camera shake correction needed at the sensor to compensate is order of magnitude different for extremely different focal lengths. And it is problematic to construct a mechanism which can compensate shake at all orders of magnitude. just from a technical point of view.

 

[Dubious Drewski]

IS can always be replaced by a sturdy tripod. Hence it is luxury. Full stop.

No... I covered that point. Sometimes you need to remain mobile, like when you are shooting an event. Sometimes it's just too much weight, sometimes there's no room or time to set up. This is very common with people photography.

but technically, the mechanism will have to be a compromise if it has to serve 11 mm and 600mm lenses alike. The amplitude of camera shake correction needed at the sensor to compensate is order of magnitude different for extremely different focal lengths. And it is problematic to construct a mechanism which can compensate shake at all orders of magnitude. just from a technical point of view.

Yes, this is true, and that's why I partially conceded the point just a moment ago. (Did you even read my whole post? lol) But! But it is not as much a problem as you imply. First of all, IS with an 11mm lens has nearly no benefit, under any circumstance. That's just optics. And the difference in operation for an IS mechanism to work with 50mm or 600mm isn't that severe. It works the same surprisingly well; just look at the tests.

 

[Mystwalker]

If you can afford it, go with IS.

Personally, I would not mind saving a little longer to get model that has IS - I did with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS.

Wish all lens had IS.

 

[Alex_B]

No... I covered that point. Sometimes you need to remain mobile, like when you are shooting an event. Sometimes it's just too much weight, sometimes there's no room or time to set up. This is very common with people photography.

but in principle you could do it without IS... just IS is more convenient.
Affording IS for reasons of convenience is not a bad thing though!!

Yes, this is true, and that's why I partially conceded the point just a moment ago. (Did you even read my whole post? lol) But! But it is not as much a problem as you imply. First of all, IS with an 11mm lens has nearly no benefit, under any circumstance. That's just optics. And the difference in operation for an IS mechanism to work with 50mm or 600mm isn't that severe. It works the same surprisingly well; just look at the tests.

I agree I pushed it to the extremes there... I have no IS with my 17-40 lens, and I never really needed it either! between 50 and 500 it becomes very beneficial though. So in that sense you are right that differences will probably not be enormous.

But anyway, in-lens IS works with all my camera bodies, also with those using film!

 

[Dubious Drewski]

but in principle you could do it without IS... just IS is more convenient.
Affording IS for reasons of convenience is not a bad thing though!!

Eh, this is a sliding slope here. Just like you can argue that having a good-looking photograph is just a convenience, you could also argue that having any photograph taken at all is nothing more than a convenience in life; you can live without it, but they're nice to have.

Ok, ok, I think I'm almost done with this thread. Haha.

 

[Alex_B]

Eh, this is a sliding slope here. Just like you can argue that having a good-looking photograph is just a convenience, you could also argue that having any photograph taken at all is nothing more than a convenience in life; you can live without it, but they're nice to have.

Ok, ok, I think I'm almost done with this thread. Haha.

si, I think we are not too far apart here anyway

 

[YoungPic]

So it looks like I’ve started a bit of a fire storm here. Well here’s another reason (besides the money) to why I asked this question, I have a 17-85 IS USM lens, and I’ve tried to push it (i.e. shooting below a 60th) and the IS has been anything but outstanding, or remotely good, so I don't know what any difference it will have if any in a 200mm lens then the 17-85 I have now. And once again, IT’S LIKE 600 MORE FOR THE STUPID IS. It’s not like your hands shake uncontrollably, or that the winds going to tip you over, so I guess to me IS is kind of like a warranty, yes it's really nice to have, but at the end of the day, its money that might never be used, and if your anywhere near competent then you’ll be able to use this lens without IS. Another thing is, I have a 250mm lens for my spotmatic, this thing seems to be made of steel and a whole bunch of glass, needless to say it’s heavy. I've shot races and landscapes with this thing and haven’t once said "wish this had IS", so I’m going to assume that this 70-200 (which I’ve used before) isn't going to be that much tougher to use or heavier to hold. So as you can see I’m kind of against this idea of IS is necessity, and more of a luxury or way to spend more money, so now leave your best argument why I should spend about $600 more on something that I MIGHT see a difference with.