Reading mode: Light Dark

Uzi Stabilizer on-off Comparisons, Tripod 4 Sale

Go to last post
thelawayne said:
Jerry,

Why would there be any difference comparing IS / no IS using a
tripod? Maybe there is somthing I don't understand about IS, but
if there is no movement of the camera, shouldn't the two shots be
the same? Also, if the subject is moving, does IS help in some
regard with slower shutter speeds when the light is poor?

Thanks in advance.

Wayne

JerryLP wrote:
Click to expand...
thelawayne:

I am only repeating what I have heard, to my best recollection, on this forum, that IS MAY be fooled and/or MAY "hunt" back and forth to different focus points, when used on a (solid) support or tripod, and that disabling IS when using a SOLID support seems to be the consensus recommendation here. I have no proof of this as fact, and so far, I have not researched any tests regarding this on this forum (perhaps I should). I was just interested in knowing whether a composite technique was ever used before for a "tripod" test.

Jerry
thelawayne said:
thelawayne said:
Outstanding job, John! I must confess, I did not do a search, but
what about a similar composite comparing IS / no IS with UZI on a
tripod. Apparently for this application, according to most
opinions, no IS should be better. Your composite technique would
show the result (whatever it is) with no ambiguity. (Forgive me if
this test has already been done!)
Thanks for posting your work!

Jerry
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Oops, now I feel out of place. I am an Uzi user and in fact,
just got hold of a monopod. ;) Tomorrow I will have a chance
to test it out to see if taking without image stabilizer would
yield better images. That is with the assistance of the monopod.

Edwin
John Curtis said:
See why C2100UZ owners are selling their tripods!

I have two composite photos showing the benefit of the Oly C2100UZ
stabilized lens. Now if we can only keep our subjects still.
Click to expand...
------ http://www.pbase.com/eddy2099My Digital photo album
 
Inigo Montoya said:
Terry, it's not just a claim she makes.... look at her galleries.
And I think there's something to be said that if she can get good
handheld shots, other people can too. Not necessarily everyone, but
probably quite a few. It's a matter of technique and practice.
Now if you don't have the time or patience to get that technique
down, or have too much caffeine in your diet (not a joke - I shot
target rifles in high school and this was a major point from our coach
for holding steady!), then IS can be a big help.
Click to expand...
I've seen her galleries and they're very good but I feel that she makes it seem like it's very easy to get shots like that at very slow shutter speeds and it's really not THAT easy. That has been MY experience. And how do you know that I haven't tried taking low-light shots without IS? How do you know I don't have a steady hand? That almost sounds like a personal attack too. Actually, another one of my pursuits is archery... competition archery in which scopes are used. Those things jump around quite a bit if you're not steady.
Inigo Montoya said:
I've read a lot of her posts too, and noticed that sharpness is very
important to her in her pictures. If she wasn't getting that with
her 700,
why would she like it so much? She tried the Uzi with IS, but
found the
700 was better for her.
Click to expand...
Yes, and she has been dogging the 2100 quite often for some reason. She even tried to say that the IS worked AGAINST her. But the point is, how come there's no one else getting the same results that she is? I've seen numerous posts from people who've tried and given up.
Inigo Montoya said:
Also, please remember that English is not Daniella's native language,
and while she expresses herself very well, the tone and intent of
people's
words don't always come across as intended in writing -- even for
those
whose only language is English.

I simply see her expressing her opinion no different than anyone
else here, and it's a welcome (and I think needed) balance.
Please, continue to discuss the point (IS, or not to IS), but
also be careful of the tone in which you express your opinions.
Click to expand...
Then why is it she gets upset when someone posts info about a 2100 in posts not mentioning the 2100 but doesn't seem to mind posting info about the 700 when it's not mentioned? Why is it she continuously points out the negatives about the 2100 but when someone points out a negative about the 700, she gets in a tither about it? That's BALANCE?
Inigo Montoya said:
In this particular case, regardless of your intent, your comments
could very easily be seen as a personal attack. The 700 and 2100
have many similarities, and a few key differences. If IS isn't
important
to someone due to having good skill/talent/technique the manual
white balance does become one of the most important discriminators.
Click to expand...
That's quite true but I was just expressing my viewpoint about that. I do have a camera with manual whilte balance but I rarely ever use it. The camera does a very good job on auto and I run all my images through an editor anyway.
Inigo Montoya said:
...and before anyone gets in a huff, I consider myself to be
first in line in the "impatient with poor technique" crowd.
Probably too much caffeine too.
Click to expand...
 
Edwin57917 said:
Edwin wrote:
Oops, now I feel out of place. I am an Uzi user and in fact,
just got hold of a monopod. ;) Tomorrow I will have a chance
to test it out to see if taking without image stabilizer would
yield better images. That is with the assistance of the monopod.
Click to expand...
I always use IS when I use my monopod with good results. I am interested in how yours without IS come out.

Edwin,I find a monopod very helpful for low angle shots where it is uncomfortable to hold steady without it. Also for small animal wildlife (squirells and chipmonks) to get down to there eyelevel. I will sit or kneel down on a hunters pad for comfort and steady the camera with the monopod while I wait for the critter to get close. Here's an example where I used a monopod for this purpose...Bob



-- http://www.pbase.com/mofongo 'Freedom of speech is wonderful - right up there with the freedom not to listen.'
 
Bob, That is one stunningly sharp image. One of the best I've seen for sure.

I almost always use a monopod at LL baseball games with IS on and have very good results.

While it doesn't totally prevent side to side or forward back movement, and does stabilize all up and down movement, but it doesn't interfere or prevent the IS from working as it would on a tripod.JD
Bob S said:
Mofongo said:
Edwin wrote:
Oops, now I feel out of place. I am an Uzi user and in fact,
just got hold of a monopod. ;) Tomorrow I will have a chance
to test it out to see if taking without image stabilizer would
yield better images. That is with the assistance of the monopod.
Click to expand...
I always use IS when I use my monopod with good results. I am
interested in how yours without IS come out.

Edwin,I find a monopod very helpful for low angle shots where it is
uncomfortable to hold steady without it. Also for small animal
wildlife (squirells and chipmonks) to get down to there eyelevel. I
will sit or kneel down on a hunters pad for comfort and steady the
camera with the monopod while I wait for the critter to get close.
Here's an example where I used a monopod for this purpose...Bob



--
http://www.pbase.com/mofongo

'Freedom of speech is wonderful - right up there with the
freedom not to listen.'
Click to expand...
 
John / Bob,

Well, I did a few home trials with the Uzi with IS off and on Monopod,
I was able to take pretty sharp images of my fish tank at 1/10th but
that was a badly composed image since at that speed and in front
of the tank I inevitably took my reflection in it. Besides the fishes were
not where I wanted them to be. How do you train fishes to remain
still ?

Anyway, I am off to the zoo so wish me luck.

Edwin
john D1 said:
Bob, That is one stunningly sharp image. One of the best I've seen
for sure.
I almost always use a monopod at LL baseball games with IS on and
have very good results.
While it doesn't totally prevent side to side or forward back
movement, and does stabilize all up and down movement, but it
doesn't interfere or prevent the IS from working as it would on a
tripod.JD
Click to expand...
------ http://www.pbase.com/eddy2099My Digital photo album
 
Bob S said:
Edwin,I find a monopod very helpful for low angle shots where it is
uncomfortable to hold steady without it. Also for small animal
wildlife (squirells and chipmonks) to get down to there eyelevel. I
will sit or kneel down on a hunters pad for comfort and steady the
camera with the monopod while I wait for the critter to get close.
Here's an example where I used a monopod for this purpose...Bob
Click to expand...
That is a nice shot. What brand monopod? How much $? How far off the ground was it? Is that as low as it goes?
 
Bob.
That chipmunk is superb.

Edwin wrote:
How do you train fishes to remain still ?

I put mine in the freezer for a few hours, then they just slowly drift around.
****
 
Hi John,

I my case i have less problem holding a small camera than a big. I had lots of problem getting sharp shots at 200mm with my film SLR.

As for the C700, i can take it up to 1/10 but at this i get some blurred too.

safe zone for me is 1/25. I think the bigger the camera, the most it need to have IS. I also think IS is very usefull between 1/30 and 1/2.

I was really surprised that he had such blurred image without IS, as i tried the C2100 and had no way such result, with or without IS. I guess that mean that some people really do need the IS absolutly. I hope i will keep my steady hands for couple of more year..at least until the c700 still working :)
john D1 said:
Daniella3d said:
Here is a shot i did at 1/25 full zoom no tripod:

http://www.pbase.com/image/691306

I mostly don't have problem holding the camera straight up to 1/10.
I did had problem doing the same thing with the c2100, probably
because its big for my hand and harder to hold, more heavy.

--
Daniella
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
C7OO discussion group:
http://www.homepet.com/cgi-bin/c700/UltraBoard.cgi

'The things you own will only endup owning you'
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--Daniella http://www.pbase.com/zylenC7OO discussion group: http://www.homepet.com/cgi-bin/c700/UltraBoard.cgi 'The things you own will only endup owning you'
 
Now Terry, don't be so thorn apart by my comments :)))
Terry Thorn said:
john D1 said:
Daniella,
Do you think that is why Oly supposedly discontinued the UZI
because Image Stabilization isn't really necessary? And you don't
have any problem holding it steady at full zoom on 1/10 sec? Wow!!
Simply amazing! I always thought the heavier camera would be more
stable. JD
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--Daniella http://www.pbase.com/zylenC7OO discussion group: http://www.homepet.com/cgi-bin/c700/UltraBoard.cgi 'The things you own will only endup owning you'
 
yes sure, when i will be an old woman with shaky hands :)))

Hope that by that time they will have figure out a way to make mircoscopic IS system though, because i like small cameras.
john D1 said:
Terry Thorn said:
john D1 said:
Daniella,
Do you think that is why Oly supposedly discontinued the UZI
because Image Stabilization isn't really necessary? And you don't
have any problem holding it steady at full zoom on 1/10 sec? Wow!!
Simply amazing! I always thought the heavier camera would be more
stable. JD
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--Daniella http://www.pbase.com/zylenC7OO discussion group: http://www.homepet.com/cgi-bin/c700/UltraBoard.cgi 'The things you own will only endup owning you'
 
Hi Juli,

I definitly don,t want to be rude to anyone..i am as sweet as a pussycat :) hmm maybe i need to be more carefull they way i say things, maybe i need to hire my personal moderator!

ho well...

If the C2100 would have been smaller i would have got that one instead for the lamp assisted focus, that's what i miss the most so far. don't like using the manual focus.
Juli Valley said:
Juli Valley said:
Also, please remember that English is not Daniella's native language,
and while she expresses herself very well, the tone and intent of
people's
words don't always come across as intended in writing -- even for
those
whose only language is English.
Click to expand...
I think the French to English jump sometimes makes her statements
appear more aggressive than she intends. I wish I had her steady
hands, but I need the help of IS.
--
http://www.pbase.com/julivalley/galleries
21oo, B-3oo
3o4o
Juli
Click to expand...
--Daniella http://www.pbase.com/zylenC7OO discussion group: http://www.homepet.com/cgi-bin/c700/UltraBoard.cgi 'The things you own will only endup owning you'
 
i think its not so much related to people, yes it can make a difference if your drinking coffee and your hands are not so steady, but i think the size of the camera also has its influence on this. Like i mentioned, i had problem holding my big SLR with the 200mm lens (which was HUDGE) and getting sharp shots..a real problem in fact that i was getting one sharp shot out of 50 maybe and since it was film..guess how much waisted money?

With a small camera like the c700 i was really surprised and pleased that i could finally get this. Maybe i had let my surprise overwelm? me and none of my comment were meant to be rude.

You seam to be the only one offended though...your always the one personaly attacking me.
Terry Thorn said:
Inigo Montoya said:
Terry, it's not just a claim she makes.... look at her galleries.
And I think there's something to be said that if she can get good
handheld shots, other people can too. Not necessarily everyone, but
probably quite a few. It's a matter of technique and practice.
Now if you don't have the time or patience to get that technique
down, or have too much caffeine in your diet (not a joke - I shot
target rifles in high school and this was a major point from our coach
for holding steady!), then IS can be a big help.
Click to expand...
I've seen her galleries and they're very good but I feel that she
makes it seem like it's very easy to get shots like that at very
slow shutter speeds and it's really not THAT easy. That has been MY
experience. And how do you know that I haven't tried taking
low-light shots without IS? How do you know I don't have a steady
hand? That almost sounds like a personal attack too. Actually,
another one of my pursuits is archery... competition archery in
which scopes are used. Those things jump around quite a bit if
you're not steady.
Member said:
I've read a lot of her posts too, and noticed that sharpness is very
important to her in her pictures. If she wasn't getting that with
her 700,
why would she like it so much? She tried the Uzi with IS, but
found the
700 was better for her.
Click to expand...
Yes, and she has been dogging the 2100 quite often for some reason.
She even tried to say that the IS worked AGAINST her. But the point
is, how come there's no one else getting the same results that she
is? I've seen numerous posts from people who've tried and given up.
Member said:
Also, please remember that English is not Daniella's native language,
and while she expresses herself very well, the tone and intent of
people's
words don't always come across as intended in writing -- even for
those
whose only language is English.

I simply see her expressing her opinion no different than anyone
else here, and it's a welcome (and I think needed) balance.
Please, continue to discuss the point (IS, or not to IS), but
also be careful of the tone in which you express your opinions.
Click to expand...
Then why is it she gets upset when someone posts info about a 2100
in posts not mentioning the 2100 but doesn't seem to mind posting
info about the 700 when it's not mentioned? Why is it she
continuously points out the negatives about the 2100 but when
someone points out a negative about the 700, she gets in a tither
about it? That's BALANCE?
Member said:
In this particular case, regardless of your intent, your comments
could very easily be seen as a personal attack. The 700 and 2100
have many similarities, and a few key differences. If IS isn't
important
to someone due to having good skill/talent/technique the manual
white balance does become one of the most important discriminators.
Click to expand...
That's quite true but I was just expressing my viewpoint about
that. I do have a camera with manual whilte balance but I rarely
ever use it. The camera does a very good job on auto and I run all
my images through an editor anyway.
Member said:
...and before anyone gets in a huff, I consider myself to be
first in line in the "impatient with poor technique" crowd.
Probably too much caffeine too.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--Daniella http://www.pbase.com/zylenC7OO discussion group: http://www.homepet.com/cgi-bin/c700/UltraBoard.cgi 'The things you own will only endup owning you'
 
well, this all thing started when i had read a thread in this forum which was saying something like the c700 was practically useless since it had no IS and so you could not use the full zoom without tripod...

I was a bit shocked to read this and i think a made a point to correct this false beleive, and it seam that did not please everyone!

thanks for your comments, i feel like i have a brave knight protecting me :)))
Inigo Montoya said:
I've read a lot of her posts too, and noticed that sharpness is very
important to her in her pictures. If she wasn't getting that with
her 700,
why would she like it so much? She tried the Uzi with IS, but
found the
700 was better for her.

Also, please remember that English is not Daniella's native language,
and while she expresses herself very well, the tone and intent of
people's
words don't always come across as intended in writing -- even for
those
whose only language is English.

I simply see her expressing her opinion no different than anyone
else here, and it's a welcome (and I think needed) balance.
Please, continue to discuss the point (IS, or not to IS), but
also be careful of the tone in which you express your opinions.

In this particular case, regardless of your intent, your comments
could very easily be seen as a personal attack. The 700 and 2100
have many similarities, and a few key differences. If IS isn't
important
to someone due to having good skill/talent/technique the manual
white balance does become one of the most important discriminators.

...and before anyone gets in a huff, I consider myself to be
first in line in the "impatient with poor technique" crowd.
Probably too much caffeine too.
Terry Thorn said:
john D1 said:
Daniella,
Do you think that is why Oly supposedly discontinued the UZI
because Image Stabilization isn't really necessary? And you don't
have any problem holding it steady at full zoom on 1/10 sec? Wow!!
Simply amazing! I always thought the heavier camera would be more
stable. JD
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--Daniella http://www.pbase.com/zylenC7OO discussion group: http://www.homepet.com/cgi-bin/c700/UltraBoard.cgi 'The things you own will only endup owning you'
 
Hi Michel,

You seam to be able to hold the camera steady up until 1/50, not so bad for a big camera like that.

Today i tried my new infrared filter with speed of 1/2 without tripod..no can do! i guess i will need to use a tripod at speed longer than 1/10 for infrared.

Did you try infrared? the c2100 is doing a wonderfull job at this, much better than the c700. Bob S has an impressive collection of those beautiful images, have you seen them?
michel said:
John Curtis said:
See why C2100UZ owners are selling their tripods!
Click to expand...
John,
Just to add to your impressive test : I had made a quick comparison
test, with results not as obvious as your, but my test was made on
purpose in difficult light conditions. Here is the link :
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&message=1976820
Michel.
Click to expand...
--Daniella http://www.pbase.com/zylenC7OO discussion group: http://www.homepet.com/cgi-bin/c700/UltraBoard.cgi 'The things you own will only endup owning you'
 
Daniella3d said:
well, this all thing started when i had read a thread in this forum
which was saying something like the c700 was practically useless
since it had no IS and so you could not use the full zoom without
tripod...
Click to expand...
Would you mind pointing that thread out, please?
 
Hi Bob...i am still droowling ? over your wonderfull IR images!

I got my R72 filter today and i surely need to use a tripod as i cannot take them with exposure shorter than 1/2 seconds.

They came out not so bad, considering that i was expecting a total desaster from the C700 and IR. I will post them as soon as i can ul to pbase. They are no way near your quality of composition but its a valid test for the c700 and IR.

How long shutter speed can you use with the IS and the R72 filter before it start to become blurry?
Bob S said:
Mofongo said:
John Perilloux wrote:
The IS is really something, isn't it, John? Check this IR photo at
1/20s, hand-held: http://www.pbase.com/image/420876
Click to expand...
Beautiful! That's one area where the IS really shines. When I shot
IR with my old 2020 I had to use a tripod on every shot with my
Hoya R72 IR filter. I was so happy being able to sharp handheld IR
shots as a result of the IS on my 2100. Beautiful shot by the way.
Here'a a few of mine...Bob
http://www.pbase.com/mofongo/infrared

--
http://www.pbase.com/mofongo

'Freedom of speech is wonderful - right up there with the
freedom not to listen.'
Click to expand...
--Daniella http://www.pbase.com/zylenC7OO discussion group: http://www.homepet.com/cgi-bin/c700/UltraBoard.cgi 'The things you own will only endup owning you'
 
I don't recall seeing anyone else posting that they can go that slow with their C700 and get sharp handheld shots like you're claiming. What's your technique? How about sharing that with us?
Daniella3d said:
Hi John,

I my case i have less problem holding a small camera than a big. I
had lots of problem getting sharp shots at 200mm with my film SLR.

As for the C700, i can take it up to 1/10 but at this i get some
blurred too.

safe zone for me is 1/25. I think the bigger the camera, the most
it need to have IS. I also think IS is very usefull between 1/30
and 1/2.

I was really surprised that he had such blurred image without IS,
as i tried the C2100 and had no way such result, with or without
IS. I guess that mean that some people really do need the IS
absolutly. I hope i will keep my steady hands for couple of more
year..at least until the c700 still working :)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top