Image Stabilization and a Tripod

EthanP

Member
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Should I turn image stabilization off when using a tripod? (for both Canon and Nikon versions). I’ve read that I should elsewhere, but does not turning it off impact image quality by “overstabilizing” or something like that? Are any artifacts created?
 
Some of the Nikon and Canon lenses have a tripod mode where they sense that they are on a tripod and turn themselves off. Other types of stabilization should be turned off, as they try to correct for wobbliness that isn't there and as a result the image becomes a bit jittery.
 
Should I turn image stabilization off when using a tripod? (for both Canon and Nikon versions). I’ve read that I should elsewhere,
Yes its in the manuals that nobody reads and just post questions instead.
but does not turning it off impact image quality by “overstabilizing”
Is that even a thing
or something like that? Are any artifacts created?
No.
 
Should I turn image stabilization off when using a tripod? (for both Canon and Nikon versions).
Asking for opinions here is fine, but I have to wonder, why have you not simply tried it out for yourself and then perhaps share your results with the rest of us here?

My vote is that IS should be OFF when on a tripod.
I’ve read that I should elsewhere, but does not turning it off impact image quality by “overstabilizing” or something like that? Are any artifacts created?
Please please please explain what it is you mean by this, I would love to read a thorough explanation of what this “overstabilizing” would look like.

Let's think this through - you wonder if mounting a camera to a tripod without active Image Stabilization (i.e. switched off) will result in the image being too stable? and are concerned about the possibility that being too stable may cause some artifacts?
The answer exists in the sharpness of every tripod mounted photograph ever taken before IS ever existed. So there's like a Hundred+ years of sharp tripod mounted non-IS photos to answer your question.
 
Last edited:
Should I turn image stabilization off when using a tripod? (for both Canon and Nikon versions). I’ve read that I should elsewhere,
Yes its in the manuals that nobody reads and just post questions instead.
but does not turning it off impact image quality by “overstabilizing”
Is that even a thing
Yes, it's a "thing" even if that's not the proper terminology. If the lens IS doesn't turn itself off when on a tripod, the IS mechanism actually could induce blur because it's moving, trying to find a vibration to compensate for even if there isn't one.

Don't take my word for it, here are a couple links:

http://digital-photography-school.com/image-stabilization-on-tripods

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/indepth...ge-stabilization-when-use-it-and-when-turn-it

http://www.shutterbug.com/content/image-stabilization-tripods-picture-isn’t-always-clear

To the OP, if you're not sure and your tripod is solid, better to turn IS off.

Mark
 
Last edited:
There is another consideration. When shooting on a tripod for best results, MLU and a remote (or delayed) shutter button is recommended. If you don't use these techniques and if IS on is ok on a tripod, then IS can help by reducing mirror induced motion. Typical frequencies of mirror motion is in the same range that is corrected by IS. Heavier body/lens combinations help also by lowering motion frequencies from the larger system mass.
 
Should I turn image stabilization off when using a tripod? (for both Canon and Nikon versions).
Asking for opinions here is fine, but I have to wonder, why have you not simply tried it out for yourself and then perhaps share your results with the rest of us here?

My vote is that IS should be OFF when on a tripod.
I’ve read that I should elsewhere, but does not turning it off impact image quality by “overstabilizing” or something like that? Are any artifacts created?
Please please please explain what it is you mean by this, I would love to read a thorough explanation of what this “overstabilizing” would look like.

Let's think this through - you wonder if mounting a camera to a tripod without active Image Stabilization (i.e. switched off) will result in the image being too stable? and are concerned about the possibility that being too stable may cause some artifacts?
The answer exists in the sharpness of every tripod mounted photograph ever taken before IS ever existed. So there's like a Hundred+ years of sharp tripod mounted non-IS photos to answer your question.
I have tried it, but couldn't notice a difference. It's possible that my camera can sense it is on a tripod, as jcharding says. I don't know. By "overstabilizing" I simply meant that the process that is used in IS might be doing something bad if it were applied to an image already stable - similar to how early noise reduction programs might introduce distortions if they were applied to images without much noise (or applied more than once, etc).
 
Should I turn image stabilization off when using a tripod? (for both Canon and Nikon versions). I’ve read that I should elsewhere,
Yes its in the manuals that nobody reads and just post questions instead.
but does not turning it off impact image quality by “overstabilizing”
Is that even a thing
Yes, it's a "thing" even if that's not the proper terminology. If the lens IS doesn't turn itself off when on a tripod, the IS mechanism actually could induce blur because it's moving, trying to find a vibration to compensate for even if there isn't one.

Don't take my word for it, here are a couple links:

http://digital-photography-school.com/image-stabilization-on-tripods

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/indepth...ge-stabilization-when-use-it-and-when-turn-it

http://www.shutterbug.com/content/image-stabilization-tripods-picture-isn’t-always-clear

To the OP, if you're not sure and your tripod is solid, better to turn IS off.

Mark
Thanks, this clarifies things.
 
Should I turn image stabilization off when using a tripod? (for both Canon and Nikon versions).
Asking for opinions here is fine, but I have to wonder, why have you not simply tried it out for yourself and then perhaps share your results with the rest of us here?

My vote is that IS should be OFF when on a tripod.
I’ve read that I should elsewhere, but does not turning it off impact image quality by “overstabilizing” or something like that? Are any artifacts created?
Please please please explain what it is you mean by this, I would love to read a thorough explanation of what this “overstabilizing” would look like.

Let's think this through - you wonder if mounting a camera to a tripod without active Image Stabilization (i.e. switched off) will result in the image being too stable? and are concerned about the possibility that being too stable may cause some artifacts?
The answer exists in the sharpness of every tripod mounted photograph ever taken before IS ever existed. So there's like a Hundred+ years of sharp tripod mounted non-IS photos to answer your question.
I have tried it, but couldn't notice a difference. It's possible that my camera can sense it is on a tripod, as jcharding says. I don't know. By "overstabilizing" I simply meant that the process that is used in IS might be doing something bad if it were applied to an image already stable - similar to how early noise reduction programs might introduce distortions if they were applied to images without much noise (or applied more than once, etc).
That makes perfect sense, but it's not what you initially asked. You asked, " does not turning it off impact image quality by “overstabilizing”. To restate, there is no such thing as too stable. Why should the default mode of IS during tripod use be OFF? because you want to "lock" the lens and let the tripod provide stabilization for the image. This may not seem necessary for shorter daytime exposures but leaving IS on during LONG (2-sec or >) exposures is a bad idea as the lens will eventually wander during that time resulting in a blurred capture.
 
Thanks for the further information, as it continues to be useful to me, but I think you may be getting hung up on my use of "overstabilizing." I honestly never thought an image could be too stable but only that the process used in image stabilization might function incorrectly on an already stabilized image. I just put the word in quotes to signify the lack of knowledge about what exactly might go wrong and so as to label it something - I was only trying to refer to something that I knew ahead of time would not be clear, not indicate that an image can be too stable. I didn't mean to mislead with the term, although I can see how you might have interpreted it as you did.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top