I agree about the 90, and I forgot about it helping with longer focal lengths, but we're discussing zooms that top out at 55mm. I like having OIS on my 55-200.
Good point.
Would be a good way to meet... you'll recognize me as the tired looking guy at the head of the line at Pro Photo Supply waiting for the 100-400.
Hope we do meet some time!Would be a good way to meet... you'll recognize me as the tired looking guy at the head of the line at Pro Photo Supply waiting for the 100-400.
The OIS has no bearing on that whatsoever, you still need (x) shutter speed to freeze motion. OIS doesn't change that. I love image stabilization, I have shot Canon for years and love my 70-200 f4 L IS lens, the IS is fantastic, but it still has no effect on a moving subject, only the camera shake.
OIS affects everything, but you still need (x) shutter speed to freeze a moving subject. If a person is walking across the filed of view, 1/15 of a second isn't going to freeze the motion, but OIS may prevent blur from camera shake at, say 55mm focal length. OIS only cancels out the movement of the camera, not something actually moving in the scene.
Me too, George. I always enjoy your posts.Hope we do meet some time!Would be a good way to meet... you'll recognize me as the tired looking guy at the head of the line at Pro Photo Supply waiting for the 100-400.
Sorry, not missing the point. We have been discussing the 18-55 vs 16-55. If you are talking about a 200mm lens then on occasion it can help, but not by much with moving objects. I just shot a bunch the other day at 1/1/25 second of people on stage, that still isn't enough to completely freeze the motion of the people on stage at times, I bumped to to 1/250. I shoot that type of scene often, I can get away with 1/60 a lot of the time, but get a lot of blur from their hands and head. Unless they are stationary 1/125 is the slowest that works decently at 200mm. You will still see more apparent motion blur using a longer focal length that with a shorter focal length. It all depends on the size of the moving object in comparison to the image size. Star trails are a good example. You can shoot the night sky with a short focal length like a 23mm at a longer shutter speed without noticing the star trails as much as the same shutter speed with a longer focal length like a 200mm. As the focal length get longer, and your subject gets larger in the image, the motion blur will be more apparent.
You have a specific use in mind. I was arguing against the general point. I concede your premise applies at shorter focal lengths, but becomes less true for longer ones, particularly given the resolution of modern cameras. A point you appear to concede also.
