Is image stabilization really the stuff?

Started Mar 4, 2014 | Discussions thread
Dennis Forum Pro • Posts: 17,871
Re: Is image stabilization really the stuff?

cosmonaut wrote:

The high ISO capabilities of the newer Sony cameras has all but eliminated my need for image stabilization.

And some would argue that IS all but eliminates the need for high ISO. You stated that you shoot your landscapes on a tripod. Why do you bother with a tripod rather than high ISO ? (That's a rhetorical question ... point is, as good as high ISO is, low ISO is better, so why not use IS to keep ISOs lower ?)

But I have read so many post complaining the a7/7R doesn't have it in body it's the deal breaker for many.

Some people want the large sensor for better IQ, not for "same IQ without IS".

If I can shoot 8000 ISO I can honestly say I don't need it.

Are your ISO 8000 shots as good as your ISO 1000 shots ? If not, wouldn't 3 stops IS be appreciated ?

IS has its limits. Aside from limits of the technology itself, there are times that you just need faster shutter speeds. When I switched from Sony to Nikon, I had to seriously consider how much I'd miss IS (in two primes - I have excellent VR in my zooms). I looked at EXIF data in lightroom to see how many pictures I shot at shutter speeds at or below 1/EFL (I might have gone a little higher, figuring that 1/EFL isn't "tack sharp"), then looking at how many of those I could have shot at higher ISOs. I concluded that about 10% of the photos with my normal lens (28) and 15% of the photos with the 85 relied on IS, and those shots would suffer on a system without IBIS. Ultimately, I decided that those numbers weren't significant enough to keep me with Sony, and it was a good decision - I miss IBIS occasionally, but not much. But, I definitely rely on it with the zooms.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow