Image stabilisation with prime lens..

Hello - i have a question - i'm looking to buy either the new Canon T3 or the Pentax K-R (this one has image stabilisation in the body). Does it mean that with the Canon, if i use a 50MM lens, my low light images handheld would be less good then with any camera with a prime and in-body stabilisation ?

Has anyone taken pictures at night "handheld" with a Canon T2I,etc.. with a 50MM prime ?
Were you hoping to have image stabilisation ?
Thanks
Luc
--
Luc - EPL-1 + 14-42 - E-520 - http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucmontreal

montrealcanada45 said:

Hello - i have a question - i'm looking to buy either the new Canon T3 or the Pentax K-R (this one has image stabilisation in the body). Does it mean that with the Canon, if i use a 50MM lens, my low light images handheld would be less good then with any camera with a prime and in-body stabilisation ?

Click to expand...

Not if you use a tripod And ideally a remote shutter release.

IS is for situations where you don't have another means to stabilize the camera when shooting at slower shutter speeds and/or longer focal lengths. It's generally for much longer lenses than 50 mm.

The most important factor for low-light image quality will be the noise level of the sensor. If you have to use long exposures and high ISO settings to get a good exposure, you will encounter more noise. Getting a camera body with lower noise (such as 7D, 5D II, or higher), coupled with large aperture lenses such as Canon's 50 f/1.4 or bigger, will permit you to use faster shutter speeds and/or lower ISO settings, to help keep noise down.

montrealcanada45 said:

Has anyone taken pictures at night "handheld" with a Canon T2I,etc.. with a 50MM prime ?
Were you hoping to have image stabilisation ?

Click to expand...

Again, I think in these situations IS is not going to add anything as you're likely already dealing with long exposure times, even with high ISO settings. Use a tripod and use a remote release. Save the IS for the long-range shots using longer lenses.

--
Regards,
K
Ontario, Canada
http://photos.loneleaf.ca
(See my profile for equipment list.)

I forgot to add, back to your main dilemma of which body to purchase, you must always keep in mind that digital camera bodies are largely "disposable", and that it's the lens system that really matters.

When you are choosing a brand, you are choosing a lens system. Be sure you choose one that has room for growth into different types of lenses for the type of subjects, quality, and cost that best fits your style of photography. Once you've picked your lens system, then you choose a body that works for you, keeping in mind that new ones come out every year, but the lenses tend to remain the same for many years.

So your choice is not Canon body X vs Pentax body Y. It's really Canon lenses vs. Pentax lenses (plus any others). Once you commit to a brand, it becomes quite expensive to later sell off your entire kit and buy all new gear to switch brands for better lens options.

--
Regards,
K
Ontario, Canada
http://photos.loneleaf.ca
(See my profile for equipment list.)

Thanks for your reply - here are a couple of pics i took with my Olympus EPL-1, handheld with the kit zoom (18-55) i had image stabilisation on - would i get as clear a result with a Canon + 50MM without image stabilisation and not using a tripod ? does the faster lens compensate the image stabilisation from the oly ?

Luc

































--
Luc - EPL-1 + 14-42 - E-520 - http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucmontreal

There is nothing I hope for more than Canon in-body IS. It would make a world of difference to me.

I shot almost only fast L primes and in-body IS would help me a lot in the critical range of 1/20 - 1/60, where primes like the 85L and 135L are uncertain at best or even impossible to shot hand held.

The only - only - reason I stick with Canon is that high ISO is really important to me (again because I am a low light/available light shooter).

If/when SONY catches up on the high iso or Nikon jumps onto in-bpdy IS I am out of here!

(Actually, Canon also has some very nice long lenses so I will keep them even if I switch one day for the short primes

Good luck with your choice!

1/13 w/35L



1/25 w/35L



1/100 w/135L

montrealcanada45 said:

Hello - i have a question - i'm looking to buy either the new Canon T3 or the Pentax K-R (this one has image stabilisation in the body). Does it mean that with the Canon, if i use a 50MM lens, my low light images handheld would be less good then with any camera with a prime and in-body stabilisation ?

Has anyone taken pictures at night "handheld" with a Canon T2I,etc.. with a 50MM prime ?
Were you hoping to have image stabilisation ?
Thanks
Luc
--
Luc - EPL-1 + 14-42 - E-520 - http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucmontreal

Click to expand...

montrealcanada45 said:

Thanks for your reply - here are a couple of pics i took with my Olympus EPL-1, handheld with the kit zoom (18-55) i had image stabilisation on - would i get as clear a result with a Canon + 50MM without image stabilisation and not using a tripod ? does the faster lens compensate the image stabilisation from the oly ?

Click to expand...

Define "clear"... Which 50 mm lens?... How steady are you with a camera?... That's the problem with these comparisons...

The best thing to compensate for motion blur aside from a tripod is faster shutter speed (assuming of course that you aren't trying to use slow shutter speed deliberately for a creative motion blur effect of your subject). A camera that can give a low-noise high ISO, or a large aperture lens that can give you high shutter speeds (assuming you can live with the resulting narrower DoF). If you need the shutter speed and aperture for creative reasons, then get on a tripod. IS can certainly help if you've got it.

As for your comparison, I note your PEN shots are at ISO 1600. I don't know how grainy they are at full resolution, and I don't know how its noise levels compares to the Canon T3, et.al. I also note your shutter speeds ranging from 1/8 to 1/60, and all are generally wide-angle shots. 1/60 should be easily hand-holdable without IS. The slower speeds would likely require you to rest on something or use a tripod for consistent results. I also notice your largest aperture was about f/4, so a faster lens would bring the shutter speeds up..., assuming you could live with a shallower DoF.

Note that you won't get these same wide angle framings from a 50 mm.

The difficulty with "Clear" is it's not just about a stable camera, but also the quality of the lens optics (sharpness, etc.), and the camera sensor. The best way to see any difference is to actually try back-to-back comparisons using borrowed/rented eqpt, and see what you get.

Great photos..., why do you want to get rid of your PEN? Is there a specific shortcoming you want to overcome? Do the camera/lens combos you mentioned address those?

--
Regards,
K
Ontario, Canada
http://photos.loneleaf.ca
(See my profile for equipment list.)

Thanks FlighDeck for your comments i learned things reading you - i dont want to get rid of my EPL-1 - i wish i had live view and i have been told that to achieve better pictiures at night i should go for the panasonic 20 mm...wich cost 500$ alone - i tought that buying a Pentax or Canon + a prime at around 600-650 could be even better while keeping my EPL-1

There is a promo for the CANON T3 with 18-55 at 600$ as it comes out and the prime 50mm 1.8 is at 129$ the pentax would be at 689$

For the light difference i tought i would ad potential - live view - and 6400 iso etc

So thats why i wonder if no in body image stabilisation with a prime would make me regret taking a canon - i did tests with the XSI in 2008 in a store and i loved the results - luc
--
Luc - EPL-1 + 14-42 - E-520 - http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucmontreal

IMHO people put a bit too much importance on image stabilization. It's not that it's a bad thing, but I don't feel it should be a strong driving factor in body selection -- certainly not over other factors such as ISO range, sensor noise, etc.

I also fear IS is sometimes mis-understood as a feature that helps eliminate motion blur. To be clear, what it helps eliminate is motion-blur IF the blur is caused by the camera moving while the shot is taken. If the subject is moving then IS is doesn't help. In that situation, you need to accelerate the exposure (reduce the amount of time the shutter is open and that means being able to increase the amount of light through the lens (low focal ratio) or increase the ISO speed of the sensor (or a little of both.))

That's why I prefer putting emphasis on ISO range, sensor noise, and quality low-focal ratio lenses is more important than IS -- it grants greater flexibility for a broader range of shooting conditions.

The need for IS diminishes as the focal length gets shorter (wide-angle lenses tend not to have IS). There are lots of varying guidelines for whether or not you'd need IS and they're all roughly along the lines of this:

The shutter speed should be at least 1/focal-length (but that's for full frame cameras)

Or it should be at least 1/(focal-length*crop-factor) e.g. 1/(focal-length*1.6) for APS-C crop-frame.

Or it should be at least 1/(focal-length*2) (some people prefer to use this more conservatively safe value)

And of course, if the shot REALLY counts... don't rely on IS. Use a tripod.

If you can get good ISO range, low sensor noise at high ISO, low focal-ratio lenses, AND still get IS... then so much the better. Notice I sort of rank IS behind the other qualities.

maiaibing said:

If/when SONY catches up on the high iso...

Click to expand...

They just did. Read the reviews of the Nikon D7000 and Pentax K5 - both use the new 16MP Sony sensor.

montrealcanada45 said:

Hello - i have a question - i'm looking to buy either the new Canon T3 or the Pentax K-R (this one has image stabilisation in the body). Does it mean that with the Canon, if i use a 50MM lens, my low light images handheld would be less good then with any camera with a prime and in-body stabilisation ?

Click to expand...

It's disappointing how everyone avoids giving you a straight answer. Maybe they just don't have experience with Pentax.

If you're using a 50mm f/1.4 lens on both systems, and you're shooting static subjects (as your pictures show), and you're shooting hand-held, then yes, the Pentax is going to give you an advantage. The in-body stabilisation, in practise, is no different from lens IS. You're just able to apply it to any lens you put on the camera.

With the 50mm on my 50D, I can generally go down to about 1/20 and get a stable shot. Assuming I haven't had too much coffee With my old Pentax K100D Super, I could do the same thing at about 1/4 or 1/3.

It might help a little with shooting people at 50mm, but not nearly as much since the slowest safe speed for that tends to be around 1/80s anyway (might be much higher depending on context).

Of course, this is affected a bit by pixel density. If one's aim is maximum resolution, the new more highly packed sensors would make stabilization useful at shorter and shorter focal lengths no matter the situation.

So, for shooting people, if it enables an otherwise unsafely slow shutter speed for shooting people (around 1/60-1/80s much of the time) it would be useful; this would be seen mostly with 85mm and higher focal lengths.

However, it also would be useful for wide lenses whenever mostly static scenes are being shot too. It would be awfully nice to have a 16-35L IS in my opinion.

I've had no experience with in body IS cameras like Pentax, Sony, etc. but it might be helpful.

FWIW, I would welcome IS on any lens (prime or zoom, long or short) where the result would be improved by mounting it on my tripod. Mainly because I don't generally carry my tripod without a preconceived notion that I'm going to need it.

graphikal said:

It might help a little with shooting people at 50mm, but not nearly as much since the slowest safe speed for that tends to be around 1/80s anyway (might be much higher depending on context).

Click to expand...

Or lower, depending on the context. I mainly use my 30mm f/1.4 or 50mm f/1.8 when shooting friends at social gatherings. Yes, if you're trying to shoot them while they're moving, 1/60-1/80 is a safe minimun. But people pause enough. I sit and wait and end up getting nice shots at 1/20 or sometimes below.

graphikal said:

However, it also would be useful for wide lenses whenever mostly static scenes are being shot too. It would be awfully nice to have a 16-35L IS in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Me too. The 16-35mm f/4G ED VR givs ups hope - Nikon will have to respond to that sooner or later

kyjy said:

graphikal said:

It might help a little with shooting people at 50mm, but not nearly as much since the slowest safe speed for that tends to be around 1/80s anyway (might be much higher depending on context).

Click to expand...

Or lower, depending on the context. I mainly use my 30mm f/1.4 or 50mm f/1.8 when shooting friends at social gatherings. Yes, if you're trying to shoot them while they're moving, 1/60-1/80 is a safe minimun. But people pause enough. I sit and wait and end up getting nice shots at 1/20 or sometimes below.

kyjy said:

However, it also would be useful for wide lenses whenever mostly static scenes are being shot too. It would be awfully nice to have a 16-35L IS in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Me too. The 16-35mm f/4G ED VR givs ups hope - Nikon will have to respond to that sooner or later

Click to expand...

smile This time its up to Canon to respond.

Andy

--
whatever you do - do it with passion.

http://www.gefrorene-zeit.de

gefrorenezeit said:

kyjy said:

Me too. The 16-35mm f/4G ED VR givs ups hope - Nikon will have to respond to that sooner or later

Click to expand...

smile This time its up to Canon to respond.

Click to expand...

Ooops!

I don't like primes . I do want the best / latest IS I can get . I think I have only 4 lenses with I S . I would really like IS in my 35-350 and 10-22 but I don't want to have to buy a new camera to get latest IS that will work with all my lenses .
I think the IS in my 70-200 is better than the IS in my 18-55

There is enough stuff in my canon to go wrong without adding IS . If IS goes out in my lens , I will put on another lens . If it was in camera - sure as I am sitting here a unicorn would be eating my flowers while camera was in shop .
--
1st - it's a hobby

XTI - gripped , Canon - efs 10-22 , efs 17-55 , efs 18-55 IS , 28-90 , 28 @ 2.8 , 50 @1.8 , 28-135 IS , 35-350L ,Quantaray lens 70-300 macro , life size converter , KSM filters for all , kenko auto tubes , EF 25 , 7D , 70-200 MK II IS , 2X III

Stabilization is an issue with longer lenses, you don't see high end Canon 24, Zeis 21, and Canon T&S's with stabilization. Lets look at a one foot ruler being held by your finger tips, the 12 inches will magnify the movement of the ruler at the end not being held.

Now use a one inch ruler and you have significant less movement at the other end of the ruler. Same with lenses, longer lenses are more prone to movement that is not only amplified by the length of the lens, but the magnification of the lens.

The greater gains for lenses is not going to come from in lens or in camera stabilization but higher and higher useable ISO's.

--
An excellent lens lasts a lifetime, an excellent DSLR, not so long.

montrealcanada45 said:

Hello - i have a question - i'm looking to buy either the new Canon T3 or the Pentax K-R (this one has image stabilisation in the body). Does it mean that with the Canon, if i use a 50MM lens, my low light images handheld would be less good then with any camera with a prime and in-body stabilisation ?

Has anyone taken pictures at night "handheld" with a Canon T2I,etc.. with a 50MM prime ?
Were you hoping to have image stabilisation ?
Thanks
Luc

Click to expand...

I assume you want the 50mm for portraits as it becomes an 85mm equivalent, a classic portrait focal.

The 600D or 550D an 50mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.4 is already a very powerful low light portrait combo. It depends how low.

However, if you like manual focus portrait style which is more precise once you have a good technique and a big bright viewfinder, then you may prefer Pentax, as it allows just as good ISO quality plus the internal stabilizer allows good enough quality at times such as 1/12s at 50mm, assuming that the portrait subject can stay still. That is compared to Canon where you need 1/50s-1/80s to get the shoot handheld. So, 2-3 stops difference.

The above applies only for occasional evening / nightlife&no-flash portrait photography, if you're getting serious about portraits you make your own light or choose the shooting place depending on natural daylight and then IS doesn't matter, only the viewfinder and lens matters.

--
Click Click ....

MysticX said:

The above applies only for occasional evening / nightlife&no-flash portrait photography, if you're getting serious about portraits you make your own light or choose the shooting place depending on natural daylight and then IS doesn't matter, only the viewfinder and lens matters.

Click to expand...

Wow. Thanks for setting me straight. I thought I was serious about portrait photography for the last 30 years - you know Henri Cartier-Bresson and all that babble - but now I know better...

Some hopeless available light portraits:

I took a shot of a deer at midnight in the snow with a Contax 50/1.4 and my 60D. Needless to say, I was shocked it worked that well. I only miss image stabilization with that lens when taking video, and for that the Pentax wouldn't help. However, I would appreciate it with lenses like my Contax 135/2.8.