People Don't seem to get IS

I've read similar comments like those idiotekniQues is referring to from people that just don't get IS or are annoyed with IS or IS doesn't fit into their line of work so it must suck. Frankly I don't understand their IS animosity

IS is like any tool, it's great when used properly but it doesn't fix everything. IMHO it shouldn't be the #1 reason to buy a lens, instead more like reason #3 or #4.

Alan

of photography. and if you dont use it on your three IS lenses, that is just dandy with me.

it is people that tell noobs asking about IS disinformation about IS and what it can be used for, that is a problem.

not everybody has to like it, not everybody has to use it. that wasnt my point.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.simplyathos.com
http://idiotekniques.deviantart.com/gallery/

dannyraphael said:

Not so useful:

• For subjects whose motion you don't want blurred, e.g., auto

racing, action sports

HELP ME OUT... Am I kind of getting it?

Click to expand...

It's useful in some of those situations too. When tracking an object, IS can reduce camera shake greatly while still allowing to to follow that high-speed moving object that you don't want blured. This is great for blured backgrounds and sharp, high-speed objects at long focal lengths.

Slow shutter speed for background blur:



Slow shutter speed for prop blur:



Where it's not useful is for freezing non-solid-body subject motion. For example, a runner is moving in several directions at once (feet, arms, body). There are only two ways to freeze that type of motion - fast shutter speed or flash. Many such examples exist (dancing, swinging a baseball bat, etc.) But if you do have a solid object moving all at once (like a car or a plane), IS can still be a HUGE help.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

That's why I never rely on other ppl's opinion. If it suits ME, then that's all I need to know. Personally, I love IS. With the amount of aviation that I photograph, IS is a must.
Marek
--
'I tried using the rule of thirds and ended up with 1/9th of the picture'
http://www.pbase.com/marekw

Make no mistake where I'm coming from - I love IS and can't live without it.

My tripod comment in the subject line is based on the use of a tripod in conjunction with telephoto lenses and IS. For most of my wildlife shots I use a tripod/Sidekick combination with a loose lens collar; this way I can swing left/right, up/down, and rotate very quickly. Anyway, the tripod isn't perfectly steady because of how I use it (although it should be noted the combination I described is worth about four stops of camera shake reduction). Well, because the camera isn't perfectly steady I can still use IS on my 100-400 in conjunction with the tripod without any problems and I get another two plus stops of camera shake reduction.

I agree a tripod makes no sense if you are shooting candids. But for landscapes and the wildlife scenario I described above a tripod is a terrific tool. There are landscape situations where lugging a tripod around is actually compromising my safety when I'm climbing somewhere to shoot a picture but otherwise landscape shots only get better with a tripod.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian, Pbase Supporter

http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia



SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT

i dont shoot wildlife, but i do appreciate my tripod.

my post in no way was implying tripods are no good, or people who use them or love them are misguided, or that IS can eliminate the need for a tripod at all.

tripod people and IS people should be able to get along together and not give bad advice regardless what you prefer or dont prefer
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.simplyathos.com
http://idiotekniques.deviantart.com/gallery/

Keith Reeder said:

Yep, my sentiments precisely.

I always laugh at the "IS doesn't prevent motion blur..." criticism

Click to expand...

I don't know why you would laugh at that, it's obviously true.

Keith Reeder said:

• whenever I ask if their tripod does , things go very quiet..!

Click to expand...

But in this context the argument is not IS v tripod but IS v faster lens.
--
Larry D
http://home.clara.net/lnd

lnd said:

Keith Reeder said:

Yep, my sentiments precisely.

I always laugh at the "IS doesn't prevent motion blur..." criticism

Click to expand...

I don't know why you would laugh at that, it's obviously true.

Click to expand...

It's laughable because some people who are saying that are typically arguing against IS and for tripods.

lnd said:

lnd said:

• whenever I ask if their tripod does , things go very quiet..!

Click to expand...

But in this context the argument is not IS v tripod but IS v faster
lens.

Click to expand...

Yes, a fast lens is great, but that fast aperture doesn't do much good if you want to stop down the lens. The great thing about IS is that you can stop down the lens (for more depth of field, or better lens performance) and still get handholdable steadiness. And when you combine a fast aperture with IS (like the 17-55/2.8 IS), you get the best of both worlds.

Just follow the instructions, set AF to AI Servo, set IS Mode to Mode 2, panning the object and I got this:

Bell's OH-58D KIOWA WARRIOR RECONNAISSANCE / ATTACK HELICOPTER
100-400L IS at 400mm



100% crop

Agreed, it is a tool and while I don't have any animosity towards IS or its users I do think it's over hyped. I also think a lot of non-IS people look at it like a crutch. For me, it's not the lenses that are at fault, or even the users, it's the marketing weenies. I saw an ad on TV the other day, for a Fuji digicam I believe, anyway they basically stated as FACT that "You move, your kids move, but with the new IS technology blurred pictures are a thing of the past." !!! Kinda makes me go hmmm, neat trick. Like I said, it's a tool and, like any tool, to get the most out of it you must understand both HOW to use it and know it's limitations. Doesn't matter what tool we're discussing, I wouldn't use a sledge hammer to build a frame, nor would I use a tack hammer to bust up concrete. I think the problems start when a handful of people are convinced/think that they ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY MUST HAVE IS or they'll NEVER get the shots they want. Just look back over the years and you can readily see that just isn't true.

I look at it this way, in 30-odd years of shooting I've never had IS...so I've never missed it. I can see how it could be handy in a few situations but it certainly wouldn't be my first consideration when buying a lens. No, I'll start with good glass and 2.8 or faster and go from there. The exception being my 10-22 which generally gets stopped down a bit anyway...hey, it's wide, I want to see it all. Other than that: 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, & 300 2.8 (pre-IS) but I can't say that I'd want to hand hold that 6lb beast anyway.

Another 100% crop

In my case, shooting continious mode for three shots at a time, and using fill flah to boot, renders IS as being useless. I use my tripod on my 100-400 when shutter speed is below 1/500, and for time elapsed photograpy. The IS switch is left in the off position.

T3 said:

brianric said:

And people who think IS is the Holy Grail of phtography just don't
get it for those people who thik IS is a waste of money. I shoot
event photography, usually shoot in continious mode, and use flash
90% pf the time. I have it turned off on my three IS lenses. If I
need to have IS, I just as soon as put the lens on the tripod.

Click to expand...

LOL. You would rather have to haul out a heavy tripod, set it up,
mount your camera, then adjust the tripod head to frame the shot,
than simply flicking a switch to turn on IS? I usually bring a
tripod to event shoots, but it usually sits unused in the corner of
the room, folded up, in its shoulder pouch, out of the way so that
no one trips over it. Tripods are simply incompatible with many
scenarios and many environments simply because they take time to
set up, let alone time to retrieve (unless you are constantly
carrying your tripod around with you, which I would not recommend
for event photography), and they take up space to set up. Yes,
flash can be a great tool to get around low light situations, but
sometimes being able to catch an intimate and fleeting moment with
just existing light can be tremendously effective, and typically
those moments don't wait around for you to set up your tripod.
It's times like those that IS is a huge asset. I can't imagine
anyone actually prefering to "just as soon put the lens on a
tripod" in a situation like that rather than just using the IS
capability that his or her lens already has.

I only use a tripod for very long exposures (of 1 second or
greater) where IS is not effective. But there's a considerable
range of photography between those tripod-necessary shots, and
those shots where the shutter speed is so fast that IS is
un-necessary, that greatly benefit from the extra added stability
that IS offers.

Click to expand...

lnd said:

But in this context the argument is not IS v tripod but IS v faster lens.

Click to expand...

It is?

Could you point out which bit of the OP limits the discussion to that? I must have missed it.

I did see this in para 4 (the first paragraph that referred to what the "no to IS" crew have to say):

lnd said:

they say it is only good for indoor shots. they say what is the point you can just use a tripod, or lean up on something.

Click to expand...

I shoot panoramas from odd places where I can not typically use a tripod. I also need lots of DoF to get reasonable focus simultaneously in the near and far field. To get the DoF, I shoot with a large f number which really lowers the shutter speed. I also want low ISO to maximize the dynamic range of the capture (maximize the light captured to minimize the image photon noise). Thus, even in good daylight, IS is a great help in simultaneously satisfying these needs.
--
Leon
http://homepage.mac.com/leonwittwer/landscapes.htm

"NT" means no text.

Joe Kurkjian, Pbase Supporter

http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia



SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT

If you look at the recent lenses that are equipped with IS, you'll see it's the slow glass (with the glaring exception of the EF-S 17-55 / 2.8 IS). It is Canon that seems to think that IS makes up for speed.

The rumor is, however, that Canon is to be releasing a 24-70 / 2.8L IS sometime within the next year, so perhaps that, in combination with the 17-55 IS, their attitude is changing.

It's interesting to note that, arguably, Canon's "most famous" zoom is the 70-200 / 2.8L IS. But there are no primes that have IS in those FLs. Once again, Canon seemed to feel that IS compensated for speed -- no need for an 85 / 1.2L IS, 85 / 1.8 IS, 100 / 2 IS, 135 / 2L IS, or 200 / 1.8L IS, or 200 / 2.8L IS. Did they think those lenses would not sell?

However, I bought the 70-200 / 2.8L non-IS over the IS version. Why? Well, I'd love IS, but the wide-open performance of the non-IS version is better, and I shoot wide-open all the time for shallow DOF. Sharpness was more important than IS to me. So, if Canon released all the aforementioned IS primes, but they were less sharp, then I'd not be interested.

By the way, the above an excellent argument for in-camera IS vs in-lens IS although I do understand that in-lens IS has other advantages over in-camera IS.

But yes, IS is a tool, and it's a tool I'd like to add to my bag of tricks, but, unfortunately, I can't because I have to sacrifice speed to get it at the current time.

Maybe in the future Canon will recognize people like me as customers. Until then, I don't want to disturb them while they perfect the 50 / 1.2L. : )

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit my photos. If you wish to use any of my photos for any purpose other than editing in these forums, please ask.

Absolutely. BUT only for the IS lenses that support panning. A couple of the lower-end IS lenses (the 28-135 and 75-300 come to mind) do not support panning.

--
http://www.pbase.com/stevegrillo , Equipment on profile page

SteveDude said:

Absolutely. BUT only for the IS lenses that support panning. A
couple of the lower-end IS lenses (the 28-135 and 75-300 come to
mind) do not support panning.

Click to expand...

They do support panning. They just don't have a panning mode. Neither of these were shot in panning mode. I find mode 1 is better for everything, including panning. Panning mode is only if you are having trouble framing while panning.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

joe mama said:

If you look at the recent lenses that are equipped with IS, you'll
see it's the slow glass (with the glaring exception of the EF-S
17-55 / 2.8 IS). It is Canon that seems to think that IS makes up
for speed.

Click to expand...

There's always going to be slow glass. So what should they do, make all glass fast? Or only put IS in fast glass just because someone doesn't like IS in slower glass? You obviously want to put it where IS can have a benefit, and slower glass is a perfectly good place to put it. After all, other companies offer slow 70-300 lenses too. But they DON'T put IS in those lenses. So does that mean that other companies are better for not offering these lenses with IS? And by the way, other companies sometimes don't even put IS in their fast glass. Just take a look at the Nikon 17-55/2.8 DX-- same price as the Canon 17-55/2.8, but with no IS.

Furthermore, one big thing that IS does do is allow you to stop down the lens, and still get steady shots. That's something that speedy glass isn't going to help you with.

T3 said:

There's always going to be slow glass. So what should they do,
make all glass fast?

Click to expand...

There is no answer to what they "should" do. What they "want" to do is make money. We can armchair quarterback all we like, I know I certainly enjoy the role, but what I like, or what I'd like Canon to do, is entirely irrelevant.

Unless, of course, many others think as I do, because then, if somehow our voices are heard, and there are enough of them, then Canon may smell money in our desires.

So, my point was, and is, that Canon has not seen any reason to make primes with IS below 300mm, nor make fast zooms with IS (save the EF-S 17-55 / 2.8 IS and 70-200 / 2.8L IS -- two winners to be sure).

What will be interesting to know is how much money the 70-200 / 2.8L IS has made Canon in comparison to all the other IS zooms in it's range (factoring, somehow, how long each lens has been in circulation) and to see how well the 24-70 / 2.8L IS, if true, will do compared to the 24-105 / 4L IS.

It's all about maximizing profits. Perhaps Canon was thinking that if there's no fast glass with IS, people will buy what's available -- slow glass with IS. For those that want IS, that is. Maybe when, and if, they make new fast glass with IS, it will sell poorly, because people who would have bought it have their money spent on what was available at the time.

I'm not a businessman. Well, actually, I am, but that doesn't mean I have the correct answer, nor will I believe anyone who thinks they do.

All that said, however, I believe that a 70-200 / 4L IS would be Canon's biggest money-maker, despite all the other zooms in that range with and without IS.

I'm more on the fringe, so I don't expect Canon to cater to me. But maybe there are a lot more like me than either Canon or I know about. If we keep silent, then how would anyone know?

My list (all EF, as I shoot FF):

17 / 1.8L
24 / 1.4L II
50 / 1.2L
50 / 2L IS Macro
70 / 1.4L
70 / 2L IS Macro
100 / 1.4L
200 / 2.8L IS Macro

Don't know about others.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit my photos. If you wish to use any of my photos for any purpose other than editing in these forums, please ask.