IS vs large aperture

I am thinking of upgrading to a DSLR this year, and was decided on the canon 1000d, with the stabilized kit lens and maybe a 50mm f1.8 or f1.4 for low-light photography.

My question is, for portraits and photos of children, does the larger aperture of the prime give you an advantage in low-light over the IS of the zoom lens (without using a tripod)? Would it be better to get a stabilized body such as the sony a100 wich can stabilize bright primes?

Thank you.

In my opinion, regardless of the brand, nothing takes the place of fast glass. If you take a zoom that is stabalized and shoot it at 50mm at say, 1/15th second and then take a 50 f/1.4 at shoot it at 1/60 of a second, then blow them both up to 11x14 or so, I think you'll find more often than not the faster shutter wins. At least it does for me. A tripod wins even better if you wish that razor sharp image. This all depends on good technique in hand holding.

On top of that the fast glass which allows a faster shutter will freeze the subject, as you are aware. Lots of subjects that look still with no motion have some. A gentle breeze, a person twitching just a little, eyes blinking. hair moving etc. It all adds up to there being no substitute for fast glass.

Furthermore, fast glass is quality glass, by and large, and capable of producing sharper images in most cases just based on being a better optic.

Pentax has great prime lenses with in-body stabilization and would work just fine, but that Canon will do very well with in-lens stabilization in your kit. I'd advise a cheap fast prime in either case for low light work. That new white Pentax K2000 looks like a real winner with in-body IS, though I'd still go for the Canon. Canon's 50 f/1.8 is a wonderfully sharp lens for $84.95 brand new. That's almost a no-brainer.

http://www.adorama.com/CA5018AFU.html
--
Cheers, Craig

cstogian said:

I am thinking of upgrading to a DSLR this year, and was decided on
the canon 1000d, with the stabilized kit lens and maybe a 50mm f1.8
or f1.4 for low-light photography.

My question is, for portraits and photos of children, does the larger
aperture of the prime give you an advantage in low-light over the IS
of the zoom lens (without using a tripod)? Would it be better to get
a stabilized body such as the sony a100 wich can stabilize bright
primes?

Thank you.

Click to expand...

A large aperture is preferrable to IS when photographing fast moving children (or fast moving anything) in low light. The reason is that IS only stablizes the camera and cannot stablise moving objects, a wide aperture (f1.4 vs f3.5) will allow for a faster shutter speed which will do both.

Of course a stablized wide aperture lens would give you the best of both worlds but in my opinion the Sony is not as good as the Canon and I would stick with the 1000D despite the lack of in-body IS.

.....there is even a better alternative. FLASH. A few have offered their opinion as to using fast glass. But they fail to address the real negatives in real world use.

You want to think the primes through very thoroughly for lowlight photography especially if you shoot INDOORS like at home.

First, you are stuck with the same focal length and will be limited indoors. Second, you will be shooting at a worse off image quality setting (high ISOs) and you could get "muddy" looking images if the tungsten light is bad. Third, you will have to use very shallow depth of field (f1.8-f2). And these shallow apertures sometimes can't even keep a full face (from ears to nose) in focus. And last, you still might not have enough shutter speed to freeze movement depending on how low the light is.

So I would stick my money into a flash and bounce off a white ceiling. All problems solved. You will still have natural looking shots. They will be crisp and sharp will plenty of detail. You will be shooting at a better level of image quality (ISO200-400). And you can use smaller apertures for better focus (f5.6-f8). And you will have no hassels freezing motion with the electronic flash so no worries about IS or fast glass. Even if you can't bounce, using a diffuser on the flash and shooting "full-on" can give excellent results like below with a simple tweak or two.

Nikon D90 & 16-85 with SB900 in a dim lit restaurant:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatboy15/3353584744/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatboy15/3353584510/sizes/o/

All were shot at ISO800 which is still clean on a D90 and should be on your Canon too. And I altered the cameras normal 1/60s flash setting to 1/30s which along with using ISO800. This still freezes movement (electronic flash does most of the work) but leaves a nice bit of ambient light into the background. And the diffuser softens the shadows a bit too.

Bouncing indoors is a non issue and blows away the need for fast primes or IS. You can shoot at smaller apertures and lower ISO's. This shot (below) was taken at ISO400 at f5.6. All of the baby was perfectly in focus and the shot is pretty natural looking. With shallow DOF (f1.8-2), probably only parts of the baby's face would have been in focus and the image would have been a lot "muddier" and not as crisp using higher ISOs. Flash isn't the evil that most make it out to be if you can control it a bit.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatboy15/3353598282/sizes/o/

All images were shot in raw. I like control and fine tune the WB after shooting.

--
Regards,
Fatboy

Without question the fast - wide aperture - lens will win because of its out of focus background effects.

If you are a tourist on the run then maybe the anti shake lens would serve you better.

--
Peter

Persuasive Marketing Systems -
inc Copywriting, Design & Photography

aimpic said:

Without question the fast - wide aperture - lens will win because of
its out of focus background effects.

If you are a tourist on the run then maybe the anti shake lens would
serve you better.

Click to expand...

You need both I think. Fast glass for shallow DOF & IS for deep DOF. IS for long reach at dusk, dawn, in the forest, etc.

I'm a happy Pentax owner but would consider the Sony because its IS tests better than the Pentax by a stop or more.

Maybe it is because I'm older (hence less stable) but I gave up a Canon to get IS for all my prime lenses.

Dave

Given equivalent lenses, you will see about the same results with any of the big four entry level DSLRs. Given the choice of in-body stabilization for all lenses vs in-lens stabilization for some lenses, I lean toward in-body. Pentax and Sony make some good cameras with built-in stabilization and have the availability of a ton of good lenses on the used market(Minolta lenses for Sony).

Above all, try them all out and buy what feels good to you.

I don't find IS that useful because when I pixel peep (I don't usually) I find that supposedly stabilized shots are not really sharp.

That said, I think it's a useful feature that I find occasionally nice to have. Moreover, my mind has changed a bit as to in-body and in-lens. I still believe that in-lens is superior. It might be bias; I don't know, but it would also be nice to have in-body IS too. I'm guessing that Nikon might have in-body in the future. If they did, we'd have the best of both world. Stabilzed older glass and in-lens new stuff.

You know me. I'd probably leave it off. Even though I'm an old phart with sorta shakey hands, I still prefer a tripod and fast glass, but IS can be handy and why not have both.

Have a great weekend
--
Cheers, Craig

I know what the marketing departments say but the reality is you should not consider IS in the same discussion as a fast lens.

IS is very useful to eliminate camera shake. It is totally useless in dealing with object movement, that requires a faster shutter speed.

In low light a faster shutter speed is only possible with Higher ISO and/or fast glass.

In the situation you describe IS will buy you very little unless you can get your subject to stand like a mannequin.

Jim
--
Olympus E-510 and a bunch of stuff to hang on it.

maddogmd11 said:

I know what the marketing departments say but the reality is you
should not consider IS in the same discussion as a fast lens.

Click to expand...

I use IS with a fast lenses frequently and am glad I have it. These are often social situations with slowly moving subjects in dimly lit interiors; homes, bistros, etc requiring a 50 or 75mm lens at f1.7-2 or so at 1/20 - 1/30 sec.

Other situations where IS is useful include dusk & dawn or in the forest with a 200mm/2.8 for wildlife. You may not experience such situations but others may.

maddogmd11 said:

IS is very useful to eliminate camera shake. It is totally useless
in dealing with object movement, that requires a faster shutter speed.

Click to expand...

That is certainly true, but it is also true that there are many situations which camera shake, not subject motion is a problem - museums barring tripods and flash for example. Should one not get IS because it isn't useful in every situation?

Should the left hand be amputated because the right is lame?

Dave

cstogian said:

My question is, for portraits and photos of children, does the larger
aperture of the prime give you an advantage in low-light over the IS
of the zoom lens (without using a tripod)? Would it be better to get
a stabilized body such as the sony a100 wich can stabilize bright
primes?

Click to expand...

Personally, I'm a lover of IS (or VR, in Nikon speakl) but I would take the fast lens over the IS/VR every day in the situation you describe (i.e. photographing people, especially children).

It's all about shutter speed. IS/VR gets you the shot with a slower shutter, a fast lens gets you the shot with a faster shutter. And faster shutter is what you want when photographing people, unless you've got them absolutely still (which is not good for getting relaxed pictures, and impossible with children).

Even with a moderately slow speed such as 1/60, you will get motion blur if the subject so much as breaks into a quick smile or moves their head slightly.

--

you should not get IS or use IS. I have it and I use it. However if you actually read the OPs original question it was either IS OR a fast prime for shooting people inside in low light NOT IS AND fast prime.

I don't care how fast they are moving you will get a blured image at 1/20th. Period end of discussion. I suppose you could try to use IS in pan mode that might help...a little but the image will still be blury most of the time.

My comments were accurate. In a dark room with movement a fast lens and good high ISO is required. IS will improve the shot.

Jim
--
Olympus E-510 and a bunch of stuff to hang on it.

maddogmd11 said:

maddogmd11 wrote:
My comments were accurate. In a dark room with movement a fast lens
and good high ISO is required. IS will improve the shot.

Click to expand...

Jim....that is debatable. In ANY dark room and once the ceiling is white (which is very common), you can bounce a flash. So high ISOs, fast glass or IS lenses for that matter are not required.

Also, to those like yourself who gave the OP positive and accurate feedback which I'm sure that he will appreciate, you all forgot to warn him about the trade-offs of having to use a prime for lowlight photography.

You will be stuck with one focal length. So if he finds himself in a situation indoors at home, 50mm (80mm on a cropped Canon) will be very limiting. He will have to use large apertures which means his DOF will be very shallow and maybe not give acceptable results. And he will have to use extreme high ISOs which under artificial lighting like tungsten may not yield very pleasant results either.

In my typically lit living room, just to get a 1/100s shutter speed..... which is not that fast by any stretch of the imagination to freeze moving kids, I need to use ISO1600 at f1.4 which results in poor DOF and not great sharpness. For a f1.4 lens to kick in for good all around sharpness AND for some sort of decent DOF.....you want to start off with f2 at least. Even f2 is very shallow. That would bump my ISOs to 6400. Not pretty if you are not using a full frame camera. So I found that flash is a better alternative. If I can bounce, then I can use very low ISOs and shoot at f5.6 to f8 for good DOF and the electronic flash will freeze most subjects in motion. And the results are pretty natural looking.

So I ceased using primes for my indoor house shots and have gone back to using flash again. I am getting way better results....even if I have to use full on flash. I use a diffuser and up the ISOs to 800 which is acceptable and still allows decent ambient light into the photo.

Even for events and if flash is permitted, I have overcome the hang-up of carrying and using a flash. The reward is worth it in the end with more acceptable results. A few from the other day at an event which normally I would have used a fast prime and high ISOs and would have struggled for DOF.

Full on flash with diffuser and ISO800 to let some ambient light into background
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatboy15/3356410634/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatboy15/3353584510/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatboy15/3356410328/sizes/o/

Bounced under horrible tungsten
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatboy15/3355600569/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatboy15/3353598282/sizes/o//

--
Regards,
Fatboy

Test results have shown that in-lens stabilization is more effective than in-body stabilization because the stabilization can be optimised for the particular focal length and physical properties of the lens in question. For this reason, I doubt that Nikon or Canon will abandon their image stabilization strategy any time soon.

When you are talking about new lenses, it doesn't appear to me that lenses with stabilization are any more expensive than those without it. I really don't understand why.

In most cases IS is a 'nice to have' option but it's no replacement for a fast lens, and the combo is great but expensive. IS can always be negated by using a tripod when possible or use of a steady platform and utilizing good holding techniques, but there is no substitute for fast glass....
--
Regards,
Hank

cstogian said:

I am thinking of upgrading to a DSLR this year, and was decided on
the canon 1000d, with the stabilized kit lens and maybe a 50mm f1.8
or f1.4 for low-light photography.

My question is, for portraits and photos of children, does the larger
aperture of the prime give you an advantage in low-light over the IS
of the zoom lens (without using a tripod)? Would it be better to get
a stabilized body such as the sony a100 wich can stabilize bright
primes?

Thank you.

Click to expand...

I have a K2000 and love the results of being able to have a kit full of sharp, stabilized primes because of its built in AS. The K2000 focuses fast and accurate too, even in low light.

I totally agree with you, but if implementing in-body stabilization was easy, Nikon and Canon might go with the flow and do both. Who knows, but you're preaching to the chior.

Like I said, I don't particularly use IS of any type most of the time. For example, I went birding today with my 300 f/2.8 VR. I left the VR turned off, preferring a sturdy tripod. Moreover, the fast glass kept me at between 1/1250 and 1/1600 sec. LOL.. who needs IS in those conditions. I love fast primes. IS doesn't enter in my world most of the time. Also, photography is about light. I try to make the most of that as well.

I do know while birding, my keeper rate is a good bit better with VR off, but my technique is good and my shutter speeds are up.
--
Cheers, Craig

Like the OP, my desire is to get better photos of children -- specifically my 5 month old son. My existing G6 does fine outdoors, but indoors I'm tired of noisy 1/60 blurred shots, so I'm reading this thread with keen interest.

karl boyle said:

.....there is even a better alternative. FLASH. A few have offered
their opinion as to using fast glass. But they fail to address the
real negatives in real world use.

Click to expand...

Let's talk about the negatives of using a flash, as I see them:

o Big heavy thing sticking on top of your camera, making it more prone to being knocked around and more weight to lug.

o Flashes take time to recharge, don't they? Doesn't this severely limit one's ability to shoot in bursts? I've found even with my G6 that burst/continual drive is great for capturing the fleeting expressions on my boy's face, or the best angle when he's whipping it around.

o Flashes are annoying. Bursts of flashes are considered downright rude by many, and I can't imagine my son continuing in whatever photo-worthy action he was pursuing when flashed a bunch of times. I can guarantee that after a burst of just five flash shots, my wife would tell me to stop.

karl boyle said:

You want to think the primes through very thoroughly for lowlight
photography especially if you shoot INDOORS like at home.
First, you are stuck with the same focal length and will be limited
indoors.

Click to expand...

So? It would seem to me that with a 50mm (FF) or 30-35mm (1.6 cropped) prime, one could readily enough move forward or backward to frame -- I already do this with my G6 to avoid zooming out with the concomitant increase in shutter duration due to the smaller aperture, and increased blur from hand shake. Moreover we're talking about DSLRS where we can make good use of PP cropping for desired framing given modern pixel counts.

karl boyle said:

Second, you will be shooting at a worse off image quality
setting (high ISOs)

Click to expand...

We're going to be shooting higher ISO's anyway indoors, and modern cameras have much better high-ISO performance than just a couple of years ago.

karl boyle said:

and you could get "muddy" looking images if the
tungsten light is bad.

Click to expand...

Isn't tungsten (do CFL's count as fluorescent?) light consistently yellow? What does this have to do with muddiness, and can't it be adjusted for in PP?

karl boyle said:

Third, you will have to use very shallow depth
of field (f1.8-f2). And these shallow apertures sometimes can't even
keep a full face (from ears to nose) in focus.

Click to expand...

I've expressed this concern elsewhere and some have told me that at, say, f2.8 it's not so big a problem. I'm not sure who to believe.

karl boyle said:

And last, you still
might not have enough shutter speed to freeze movement depending on
how low the light is.

Click to expand...

... and how fast the movement is.

karl boyle said:

So I would stick my money into a flash and bounce off a white
ceiling. All problems solved.

Click to expand...

If one's shooting inanimate objects, sure. Shooting other humans, though, with powerful flashes has the limiting factors noted above.

karl boyle said:

You will still have natural looking
shots. They will be crisp and sharp will plenty of detail. You will
be shooting at a better level of image quality (ISO200-400).

Click to expand...

Seems like today's cameras are fine to at least 800 to me.

karl boyle said:

Even if you can't bounce, using a
diffuser on the flash and shooting "full-on" can give excellent
results like below with a simple tweak or two.

Nikon D90 & 16-85 with SB900 in a dim lit restaurant:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatboy15/3353584744/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatboy15/3353584510/sizes/o/

Click to expand...

I wish I could see them. They're all marked as private so we can't see any of your examples.

karl boyle said:

Bouncing indoors is a non issue and blows away the need for fast
primes or IS. You can shoot at smaller apertures and lower ISO's.
This shot (below) was taken at ISO400 at f5.6. All of the baby was
perfectly in focus and the shot is pretty natural looking. With
shallow DOF (f1.8-2), probably only parts of the baby's face would
have been in focus and the image would have been a lot "muddier" and
not as crisp using higher ISOs. Flash isn't the evil that most make
it out to be if you can control it a bit.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatboy15/3353598282/sizes/o/

Click to expand...

Again, I wish I could see this photo. I suspect that it's a posed portrait from a small number of shots, not a candid from a burst..

Look.....It's obvious that flash is not for you or for your family.

Now read the next bit carefully. My proposal to the OP was to offer the use of a flash as ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE for lowlight shooting. I never said it was a perfect aternative. I never said that it was the ONLY solution. And I certainly never said it would suit all. I offered my flash proposal as another solution to consider . So you didn't tune in too well to my post, dude.

It's obvious you have a some sort of bee in your bonnet and want a debate. But sorry, dude..... I have no intentions of having a debate with someone who hasn't been there and worn the tee-shirt.

One thing I did find amusing in your post below though. You gave a happy example of how you capture moments in burst mode on the G6 and how it is sooooo important in not missing and expression on your child's face. Just as a point of interest, dude...I can get as much shots off with flash indoors in single shooting mode as your 1.6fps G6 in burst mode!! So definitely end of discussion, eh?

Whenever you DO get a DSLR and fast glass...then come back and show us all your wonderful burst indoor shots without flash and we can then have a more meaniful discussion.

anthony11 said:

anthony11 wrote:
Like the OP, my desire is to get better photos of children --
specifically my 5 month old son. My existing G6 does fine outdoors,
but indoors I'm tired of noisy 1/60 blurred shots, so I'm reading
this thread with keen interest.

anthony11 said:

.....there is even a better alternative. FLASH. A few have offered
their opinion as to using fast glass. But they fail to address the
real negatives in real world use.

Click to expand...

Let's talk about the negatives of using a flash, as I see them:

o Big heavy thing sticking on top of your camera, making it more
prone to being knocked around and more weight to lug.
o Flashes take time to recharge, don't they? Doesn't this severely
limit one's ability to shoot in bursts? I've found even with my G6
that burst/continual drive is great for capturing the fleeting
expressions on my boy's face, or the best angle when he's whipping it
around.
o Flashes are annoying. Bursts of flashes are considered downright
rude by many, and I can't imagine my son continuing in whatever
photo-worthy action he was pursuing when flashed a bunch of times. I
can guarantee that after a burst of just five flash shots, my wife
would tell me to stop.

anthony11 said:

You want to think the primes through very thoroughly for lowlight
photography especially if you shoot INDOORS like at home.
First, you are stuck with the same focal length and will be limited
indoors.

Click to expand...

So? It would seem to me that with a 50mm (FF) or 30-35mm (1.6
cropped) prime, one could readily enough move forward or backward to
frame -- I already do this with my G6 to avoid zooming out with the
concomitant increase in shutter duration due to the smaller aperture,
and increased blur from hand shake. Moreover we're talking about
DSLRS where we can make good use of PP cropping for desired framing
given modern pixel counts.

anthony11 said:

Second, you will be shooting at a worse off image quality
setting (high ISOs)

Click to expand...

We're going to be shooting higher ISO's anyway indoors, and modern
cameras have much better high-ISO performance than just a couple of
years ago.

anthony11 said:

and you could get "muddy" looking images if the
tungsten light is bad.

Click to expand...

Isn't tungsten (do CFL's count as fluorescent?) light consistently
yellow? What does this have to do with muddiness, and can't it be
adjusted for in PP?

anthony11 said:

Third, you will have to use very shallow depth
of field (f1.8-f2). And these shallow apertures sometimes can't even
keep a full face (from ears to nose) in focus.

Click to expand...

I've expressed this concern elsewhere and some have told me that at,
say, f2.8 it's not so big a problem. I'm not sure who to believe.

anthony11 said:

And last, you still
might not have enough shutter speed to freeze movement depending on
how low the light is.

Click to expand...

... and how fast the movement is.

anthony11 said:

So I would stick my money into a flash and bounce off a white
ceiling. All problems solved.

Click to expand...

If one's shooting inanimate objects, sure. Shooting other humans,
though, with powerful flashes has the limiting factors noted above.

anthony11 said:

You will still have natural looking
shots. They will be crisp and sharp will plenty of detail. You will
be shooting at a better level of image quality (ISO200-400).

Click to expand...

Seems like today's cameras are fine to at least 800 to me.

anthony11 said:

Even if you can't bounce, using a
diffuser on the flash and shooting "full-on" can give excellent
results like below with a simple tweak or two.

Nikon D90 & 16-85 with SB900 in a dim lit restaurant:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatboy15/3353584744/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatboy15/3353584510/sizes/o/

Click to expand...

I wish I could see them. They're all marked as private so we can't
see any of your examples.

anthony11 said:

Bouncing indoors is a non issue and blows away the need for fast
primes or IS. You can shoot at smaller apertures and lower ISO's.
This shot (below) was taken at ISO400 at f5.6. All of the baby was
perfectly in focus and the shot is pretty natural looking. With
shallow DOF (f1.8-2), probably only parts of the baby's face would
have been in focus and the image would have been a lot "muddier" and
not as crisp using higher ISOs. Flash isn't the evil that most make
it out to be if you can control it a bit.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatboy15/3353598282/sizes/o/

Click to expand...

Again, I wish I could see this photo. I suspect that it's a posed
portrait from a small number of shots, not a candid from a burst..

Click to expand...

--
Regards,
Fatboy

karl boyle said:

Whenever you DO get a DSLR and fast glass...then come back and show
us all your wonderful burst indoor shots without flash and we can
then have a more meaniful discussion.

Click to expand...

I think someone needs his diaper changed.

I sport neither bees nor bonnets. I'm here in a Beginners Questions Forum** to figure out what would work best for me. Those of us who are grown-ups have learned that asking questions is an excellent way of acquiring knowledge.