Do I really Need IS?

[Josh66]

I'm not too worried about having IS or not. I've shot with exposures as long as 1 sec, hand held, with no noticeable camera movement. 1 second is pushing it a little, IMHO, but 1/4 - 1/2 sec isn't that hard if you have something to lean on. The main things you need to do are relax, control your breathing, and don't "jerk the trigger".

But... I've never used IS before, so I don't know what I'm missing. Maybe it really is the sh*t.

 

[Bifurcator]

hehehe yeah, over 1 second is definitely super-human. My heart-beat shakes the camera and I hope that happens more than 1/sec. or I'm probably in trouble - or sleep walking with me cammy.

 

[JerryPH]

Yep, yet another reason in-camera IS is superior!

I would tend to agree, but the people that have tested them both find that in lens VR/IS is far better than in camera VR/IS. Not sure why, but thats just the way it presently is.

As far as the choice of having or not having the technology, its a huge difference in results for me anytime I am out and about doing hand-held shooting with either the 18-200 or the 70-200 Nikkor lenses.

If you use your tripods or monopods a lot, it becomes less of a factor. Also, as far as what I see on my lenses, the ability to pan successfully with VR turned on doesn't diminish my ability to produce that desired effect. When the camera is mounted on something solid, I do make it a habit to turn it off.

Concerning my recent pics at the outdoor concert, I am sure my keeper rate would be an easy 50% less without it. I tried a few with the VR turned off, and the shots were below useless. Turned it on (even at the lower setting), and the pics suddenly became tack sharp. It works, and when used at longer focal lengths hand-held, will produce far superior results to anything you could do without it.

At longer focal lengths and hand-held, I would almost catagorize it as a must have feature in any lens that I own. I personally would prefer to save for a month or 2 extra than get a lens without it.

 

[Bifurcator]

Also Alex, Dubious Drewski,

Another thing - don't in-lens IS/VR systems rotate a lens slightly on X or Y axis in order to"redirect" the image in an offset of the shake? Isn't it true that every time light is bent the results include dispersion and in the case of a round lens projecting onto a flat surface it additionally will cause skew and other unwanted distortion?

but the people that have tested them both find that in lens VR/IS is far better than in camera VR/IS. Not sure why, but thats just the way it presently is.

My reading and study has produced the opposite findings. At least when reading up on the Minolta/Sony system. Both from independent and manufacturer studies. Nikon is currently in the process of changing to an in-camera system - I assume for that very reason.<shrug> Their 1st camera with in-camera IS will be out soon and professional models will come as scheduled.

 

[Arran Lomas]

Yes you do, Canon IS is amazingly good, I have the canon L series 70-200 I suggest investing in it!

 

[Hobbes]

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_17-85_4-5p6_is_usm_c16/page3.asp

if you scroll down a lil bit you will see the difference between having IS or not... I personally prefer take night photos without a tripod course sometimes it is a pain in the butt to bring one to lets say a concert or a night club so a lens with IS is a must ^^

 

[Village Idiot]

My reading and study has produced the opposite findings. At least when reading up on the Minolta/Sony system. Both from independent and manufacturer studies. Nikon is currently in the process of changing to an in-camera system - I assume for that very reason.<shrug> Their 1st camera with in-camera IS will be out soon and professional models will come as scheduled.

Don't be stingy. Let's see the proof.