17 hours ago
1
|
Re: vs a lens with no stabilization
In reply to tkbslc,
3 months ago
|
tkbslc wrote:
Detail Man wrote:
pannayar wrote:
tkbslc wrote:
What it means is that it lets you shoot, at best, 3 stops slower shutter speed than you would be able to with a non-stabilized lens (or with it turned off). The general rule-of-thumb is the old 1/FL rule. So a 100mm lens would require 1/100 shutter speed to all but eliminate camera shake. If we added 3-stop IS, that would now be 1/13 or so.
Of course it can't help subject motion blur, only photographer shake. So it's not terribly useful for moving subjects.
I think that helps. So is it correct to say IS stop advantage is purely based on the 1/FL rule. I.e if I shoot (with a 3 stop IS lens) at 100mm I am "covered" up to 1/13 (regardless of the lighting conditions). A.k.a the "anchor/base point" I was looking for is 1/FL.
That is news to me. I do not know of any such statements of standards where a so-called "rule of thumb" is used as a particular reference-point for the specifying of IS system performance.
The standard is compared to what you could do without IS/VR. For many people the 1/FL holds true, so that is a useful point of reference, but certainly not listed as an exact specification.
Canon references 1/FL in their Image Stabilizer marketing: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/standard_display/Lens_Advantage_IS
The guideline really is with "FL" being 35mm equivalent. A shutter speed of 1/50s would apply to 50mm lens on FF camera, but increasing to 1/75s on APS-C and 1/100s on Micro-Four-Thirds.
| Post (hide subjects) | Posted by | When | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | 1 | ||
| 3 months ago | 2 | ||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago | |||
| 3 months ago |
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
