How important is Image Stabilization to you?

[c_man]

How strongly do you rate Image Stabilization?

It seems all Oly bodies have IS built in, whilst Panny offers IS in some of their zoom lens, none of their pancake/primes.

Would lack of IS be a deal breaker for you?

I'm coming from a P&S and worried about not having IS.
Will have the G3 + 14-42mm but looking possibly towards G3 + 20mm = no IS.

Opinions appreciated!

 

[grzybu]

I have G1 + 20/1.7 and I've never missed IS.

1/10s is no problem if you are using EVF because camera is stable if you know how to handle it.

Bigger problem are people who don't stay long enough to be sharp on photos. I most cases in low light situations you will have sharp environment with blurry people IS won't help in this case.

I thought I'll miss IS when I've stopped using kit lens having Rokkor 50/1.4 but Rokkor at f/2.8 gives me better results as kit lens so I already have at least two stop gain.
But if you don't use EVF then any IS will be very helpful.

And, yes, I had camera with IS before (Minolta D7D) so I know that it can be helpful. I just don't need this with my lenses.

--
Regards
Grzegorz Rakoczy

 

[SkiHound]

IMO, IS becomes increasingly important as effective focal lengths increase and as light gathering decreases. IS makes a relatively slow kit zoom much more useable. In body and in lens stabilization have pluses and minuses. IBIS works with every lens and would probably help with the 20mm. Using the old rule of thumb a relatively safe speed for hand holding a camera is 1 / effective focal length (e.g., 1/40) for the 20mm. Some folks are steady and can do better while some are shaky and need inherently higher shutter speeds. Realistically, IBIS would probably give folks an extra stop or two with the 20mm. Pluses of IBIS are that it works with every lens (even legacy lenses), and all else being equal lenses can typically be smaller, lighter, and cheaper. In lens IS is optimized for the lens and is often a bit more effective than IBIS, and is a big plus when shooting video. If you're planning to use the 20mm a lot and in relatively low light environments one of the Pens with IBIS might be a better choice. Otherwise I don't see it as a deal breaker.
--
http://www.bjaphotos.smugmug.com

 

[Guy Parsons]

How strongly do you rate Image Stabilization?

Not terribly important feature.

It seems all Oly bodies have IS built in, whilst Panny offers IS in some of their zoom lens, none of their pancake/primes.

Would lack of IS be a deal breaker for you?

No.

I'm coming from a P&S and worried about not having IS.
Will have the G3 + 14-42mm but looking possibly towards G3 + 20mm = no IS.

Opinions appreciated!

The reason for my negativity is that I've proven to my satisfaction that my E-PL1 stabilisation adds a tiny bit of blur to images at so called safe shutter speeds (with all lenses, not just the wobbly kit lens). So I leave it off.

It does get turned on though when I do get down into slower potentially shaky speeds and it does show a positive benefit then, but that's a very small percentage of my shots.

Meanwhile I used a few non stabilised cameras since 1960 and had reasonable success, mainly due to using a tripod or some stable surface or good hand-holding methods when things got a bit dim.

Regards...... Guy
E-PL1 info.... http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~parsog/olyepl1/01-epl1-menu.html

 

[trmz]

I have an E-PL1 and I think IS is quite useful for me, as I've hardly ever had any problem with camera shake. Never tried to switch it off, though.

OTOH I once tried NX100 with kit zoom, it was at an exposition (that is, indoors), and I had a hard time taking sharp pictures because of camera shake, while I had very little problems with my cam.

So, I guess it's quite important for me and I'm not going to give it up anytime soon.

How strongly do you rate Image Stabilization?

It seems all Oly bodies have IS built in, whilst Panny offers IS in some of their zoom lens, none of their pancake/primes.

Would lack of IS be a deal breaker for you?

I'm coming from a P&S and worried about not having IS.
Will have the G3 + 14-42mm but looking possibly towards G3 + 20mm = no IS.

Opinions appreciated!

 

[normsmith]

On a scale of 1 - 10, I would say importance is 11

having said that, I like long lenses for wildlife, I live in the UK which often has poor light with regards to f5-6 - f8 type lens use at the long end. Also, My indoor pics are static items and I prefer no flash or very weak fill in flash, so again the OIS is useful.

Very interesting to look through the 100 - 300mm at the long end with OIS off and then on, the difference is dramatic - also, I just do not want to carry a tripod around, the whole point of M4/3 for me is to travel light and be as hands free as possible.

I do have a rather nice monopod if really necessary.

 

[c_man]

Exactly.
Hence I was wondering how all you GF1+20mm shooters cope with no IS at all.

the whole point of M4/3 for me is to travel light and be as hands free as possible.

 

[kermitG9]

Exactly.
Hence I was wondering how all you GF1+20mm shooters cope with no IS at all.

... that a movement is magnified by the focal length in use and that therefore IS (lens or body stabilisation) becomes more and more effective on longer focal lengths.. resp. is ineffective on wide-angle.

It makes almost no sense to implement it on 20mm as you hardly get more than 1 stop benefit.

On the other hand, connect a tele-photo lens to it .. f.ex. try it with a 300mm (600mm) on 4/3 .. and the benefits of stabilisation are more than apparent.

 

[Ednaz]

I love having image stabilization available as a tool, but it's not a deal breaker at all if a particular lens doesn't have it. On really wide lenses it doesn't add much, and the tradeoff between having stabilization versus having a smaller, lighter lens is a pretty fair tradeoff.

I keep IS off, however, as a general rule, and only turn it on when I know it is needed. IS can ruin an image - remember that it is moving things around, and I've seen images of my own where IS CAUSED motion that robbed me of sharpness. That's why there's a general rule to turn it off on tripods.

On larger cameras, IS also requires a small change in photographer technique to get the most out of it. Point and shoots are already slow - lots of lag between pressing the shutter and capturing an image, which gives IS time to figure things out and work properly. When cameras get faster, it's not unusual to get situations where IS didn't have enough time to kick in and work properly. Also, blur introduced by photographers who mash the shutter release isn't going to get compensated for by IS, and kind of introduces a wild-card for IS. Like any tool, it is more useful if one learns to use it well.

 

[JCB123]

How strongly do you rate Image Stabilization?

Image stabilisation is a 'nice' rather than a necessary feature as far as I am concerned. It can be useful, but it many of the situations where I might need it I also want to stop blur from subject movement, so a faster shuuter speed is necessary. Good image quality at higher ISO values is of higher value to me than image stabilisation. That said I'd rather shoot at base ISO an m43 cameras, and to achieve that when I don't need a fast shutter speed a light tripod with a large ball head yields sharper results than IS.

It seems all Oly bodies have IS built in, whilst Panny offers IS in some of their zoom lens, none of their pancake/primes.

I've not felt any great need for IS on the 20mm, its not that long and its fast. If I need to stop down I don't find it hard to hand hold, but then I've got that tripod if I really want ultimate sharpness.

Would lack of IS be a deal breaker for you?

No - a minor advantage on shorter lenses. More of a consideration on longer lenses, but not a deal breaker at all.

I'm coming from a P&S and worried about not having IS.
Will have the G3 + 14-42mm but looking possibly towards G3 + 20mm = no IS.

Stop worrying. You really don't need IS on the 20mm, if you need to stop down such that your shutter speed drops below 1/30, you can try one of these.

Optimise your hand holding technique. It is possible to get accepatble results at slower shutter speeds.
Use some form of improvised support - wall, tree, rock whatever.
Use Flash (if appropriate)
Use your stabilised kit lens.

Use a light tripod. You don't need a behemoth, the G3 + 20mm is a small light combo and there is no mirror slap.

Otherwise, shoot at f1.7 and auto ISO (limited to the highest ISO you are happy with the results from)

Opinions appreciated!

 

[mpgxsvcd]

I find that I rarely take a picture of a subject that is ever completely still. IS won't help if the subject is moving.

I rarely take pictures with very long shutter speeds while I am using the prime lenses because they have such large apertures.

I think Panasonic has it just right. The lenses that need IS(small aperture Zoom lenses) have IS. The lenses that don't need IS(Primes) for stills don't have IS.

Video is a whole different question. Anything hand held past 100mm(35mm Equivalent) REQUIRES good IS. Anything below 100mm will benefit greatly from IS.

--
GH2, GF1, & ZS3 Sample movies
http://www.youtube.com/user/mpgxsvcd#play/uploads
http://vimeo.com/user442745
GF1 Pictures
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4222674355/albums

 

[jeffharris]

How strongly do you rate Image Stabilization?

Sure, it's a nice feature, but I think it's overrated and will never replace solid camera handling technique. I have 3 native M4/3 lenses, one with OIS (14-140mm), the rest are manual. I don't miss OIS or IBIS.

I do a lot of shooting at night and in low-light situations.

If clinical sharpness is important, use a tripod and wired shutter release.

It seems all Oly bodies have IS built in, whilst Panny offers IS in some of their zoom lens, none of their pancake/primes.

I have a GH2. The EVF, articulated LCD, multi-aspect sensor, interface and overall superior IQ and handling massively outweigh IBIS.

I'm coming from a P&S and worried about not having IS.
Will have the G3 + 14-42mm but looking possibly towards G3 + 20mm = no IS.

Good choice! The 14-42mm has OIS and the 20mm is a great lens. You won't miss OIS with it!

 

[Gregm61]

How strongly do you rate Image Stabilization?

It seems all Oly bodies have IS built in, whilst Panny offers IS in some of their zoom lens, none of their pancake/primes.

Would lack of IS be a deal breaker for you?

I never have IS on by default. I use it once lighting conditions drop to where I am having to use shutter speeds that I am not comfortable I can hold the camera steady enough with the lens I am using. Depending on the lens, that shutter speed limit changes. If I am using my tele zoom, I start using IS sooner....around 1/125 or so. If I am using a wide angle lens I may never turn IS on.

I'm coming from a P&S and worried about not having IS.
Will have the G3 + 14-42mm but looking possibly towards G3 + 20mm = no IS.

That the G3 and 20/1.7 is a Panasonic combination and Panasonic chose to not put stabilization in either piece should tell you something as to how important it really is in that focal length.

 

[firefox23508]

No ibis is a deal breaker for me. Regardless of what all the sanctimonious shooters claim about proper camera handling, etc., it is useful, just like higher iso capabilities. I remember well when air conditioning was optional on most cars and considered in many ares as an unneccessary luxury. These same people then probably argued that they don't need no stinkin' AC ... And 60 years before that the same mindset argued that they don't need no stinkin' electric starter when they have a perfectly good hand crank--tut tut ... broken arm from kick back? You amateur, you just aren't using proper cranking technique. All this is anti stabilization venom is just code for saying, "I'm a better photographer than you are."

 

[Jim Boutilier]

IS is a nice to have. The longer the lenses you use the nicer it is.

IBIS is always available and keeps the cost and complexity.of lenses down but isn't so good for video. iLIS can be a bit more effective, particularly with video but it complicates design (cost and size to us).

For static subjects IS can give you a several stop advantage which can be significant. If you are hand holding longer lenses it's also a real blessing. But if you mostly shoot action shots it's less beneficial.

So on short primes I don't miss it, but would welcome it. On medium focal lengths I would like it. And on long lenses I want it.

--
Regards
Jim

 

[c_man]

Thanks very much for the replies, all. Some really good info here, thanks for 'educating' a newcomer like myself.

JCB123 and Ednaz - thanks in particular to your posts, very helpful.

EDIT:

No ibis is a deal breaker for me. Regardless of what all the sanctimonious shooters claim about proper camera handling, etc., it is useful, just like higher iso capabilities. I remember well when air conditioning was optional on most cars and considered in many ares as an unneccessary luxury. These same people then probably argued that they don't need no stinkin' AC ... And 60 years before that the same mindset argued that they don't need no stinkin' electric starter when they have a perfectly good hand crank--tut tut ... broken arm from kick back? You amateur, you just aren't using proper cranking technique. All this is anti stabilization venom is just code for saying, "I'm a better photographer than you are."

Okay now I'm thinking about lack of IS just as much again!

 

[mpgxsvcd]

We aren't saying that Image Stabilization is unnecessary. We are saying that subject movement is a far bigger issue than camera movement.

IS won't help the subject movement at all. Using a wider aperture lens will correct both issues though. That is why I have switched over to using fast primes without IS(14mm F2.5, 20mm F1.7, 25mm F1.4, 30 F1.4, 55mm F1.2, 85mm F1.8) for low light situations. That is a much better solution than trying to correct subject movement with a tool(IS) that can't possibly help.

No ibis is a deal breaker for me. Regardless of what all the sanctimonious shooters claim about proper camera handling, etc., it is useful, just like higher iso capabilities. I remember well when air conditioning was optional on most cars and considered in many ares as an unneccessary luxury. These same people then probably argued that they don't need no stinkin' AC ... And 60 years before that the same mindset argued that they don't need no stinkin' electric starter when they have a perfectly good hand crank--tut tut ... broken arm from kick back? You amateur, you just aren't using proper cranking technique. All this is anti stabilization venom is just code for saying, "I'm a better photographer than you are."

--
GH2, GF1, & ZS3 Sample movies
http://www.youtube.com/user/mpgxsvcd#play/uploads
http://vimeo.com/user442745
GF1 Pictures
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4222674355/albums

 

[Gato Amarillo]

How strongly do you rate Image Stabilization?

Very important to be for long lenses, say over 85 or 100mm on m4/3.

It seems all Oly bodies have IS built in, whilst Panny offers IS in some of their zoom lens, none of their pancake/primes.

It seems that lens stabilization has advantages for video and some claim it is better for very long lenses. That said, it all depend on individual implementation.

Would lack of IS be a deal breaker for you?

Definitely a factor, maybe a deal breaker on a long lens. I would not want a 200 without it, but it's not a big deal on a 12 or 14.

I'm coming from a P&S and worried about not having IS.
Will have the G3 + 14-42mm but looking possibly towards G3 + 20mm = no IS.

I wouldn't expect too much problem with a 20. IS would be nice, but IMO not a necessity.

--
After 40 years of Canon and Nikon I'm now using a camera named after my toaster.

Silver Mirage Gallery:
http://www.silvermirage.com

 

[rkhndjr]

How strongly do you rate Image Stabilization?

It seems all Oly bodies have IS built in, whilst Panny offers IS in some of their zoom lens, none of their pancake/primes.

Would lack of IS be a deal breaker for you?

I'm coming from a P&S and worried about not having IS.
Will have the G3 + 14-42mm but looking possibly towards G3 + 20mm = no IS.

It depends on you.. I am 86 years old and do not need IS, use a GF1 and 20mm easily.

Opinions appreciated!

--



Time, that aged nurse,
rocked me to patience.

 

[leeland48]

the whole point of M4/3 for me is to travel light and be as hands free as possible.

-Exactly that c-man i got the GF1-20mm last christmas i only have the one lens its never been an issue...

lee