Does one need image stabilization for sport photography?

I took some photos at sport events and was astonished of the result. Different from that what I assumed the photos were sharp even without image staibilsation of the lens (and body). So I'd guess image staibilisation is not needed for sport photography but exact and fast focussing, hight aperture of the lens and a lot of fps of the camera to capture the rigt moment.

At least my experience is that if you want to capture "move" You do not have to look for image stabilization (You gain nothing at 1/1000 sec) - what do You mean?

Image stabilisation only helps when the camera is moving. In sports photography, most of the time it is the subject that is moving. A fast lens is the best way of overcoming this.

When shooting sorts at higher shutter speeds, turn image stabilization off.
It will only slow down the autofocus.

RolfGuenter wrote:

I took some photos at sport events and was astonished of the result.
Different from that what I assumed the photos were sharp even
without image staibilsation of the lens (and body). So I'd guess
image staibilisation is not needed for sport photography but exact
and fast focussing, hight aperture of the lens and a lot of fps of
the camera to capture the rigt moment.

Depends

Say you need 1/500 to freeze movement. Say your best shutter speed is 1/600 (max iso, max aperture). Now, if you are shooting a 400mm with a 1.4 TC on a 1.6 body, you'll need the IS. If you are shooting a 200mm, you won't need it.

It might get more complicated. Smart IS will help you with panning, for example.

d/n

I have no great arguement for or against Stabilisation but I own one lens with it and like it a lot. It's a case of technology getting better as always.

But the argument below is completely nonsensical. It's a bit like saying, I've never crashed my car and I'm healthy, so the seat belts, air bags and other safety measures designed into the car are unneccessary.

I hope you are not a lawyer or in any important and decision making position Rolf. Hubbard help us if you are.
jules

RolfGuenter wrote:

I took some photos at sport events and was astonished of the result.
Different from that what I assumed the photos were sharp even
without image staibilsation of the lens (and body).

Does one need image stabilization for sports photography?

No . . . only a fast shutter speed will stop action.

Image stabilization will give you a nice sharp background.

Meyricke put it perfectly. You do not necessarily need IS for sports photography. I shoot professional wrestling without IS and because of the aperture(2.8), ISO(400) and shutter speeds(250-500) I use, blur is simply never an issue. By the way I use Canon's 70-200 2.8L.

Hope this helps.
--
Brian
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jlmodeltnaphotos/

MusicDoctorDJ wrote:

Does one need image stabilization for sports photography?

No . . . only a fast shutter speed will stop action.

Image stabilization will give you a nice sharp background.

Oh yeah . . . and a good monopod.

RolfGuenter wrote:

I took some photos at sport events and was astonished of the result.
Different from that what I assumed the photos were sharp even
without image staibilsation of the lens (and body). So I'd guess
image staibilisation is not needed for sport photography but exact
and fast focussing, hight aperture of the lens and a lot of fps of
the camera to capture the rigt moment.
At least my experience is that if you want to capture "move" You do
not have to look for image stabilization (You gain nothing at 1/1000
sec) - what do You mean?

Hmm, if I can shoot at 1/1000 sec I guess I do not need any kind of IS.

But in general, missing IS on a camera would be a deal breaker to me.

After 5 years with my old UZI I know how many shots would have ended under the delete button if there hadn´t been IS!

And no matter what a wonderful camera the E-1 is, I never bought it because of the missing IS; but waited until 6 weeks ago and bought a 520 with IS.

In one of his great articles Wrotniak once did a comparison, 60 shots WITH IS and 60 without, this is what he found:

"The results were quite dramatic: image stabilization increased the share of clearly "good" frames from 2 to 32 out of sixty, and the fraction of obviously "bad" ones dropped from 47 to zero. This leaves no doubt: image stabilization really works."
(From this article: http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/43/e510-rev.html#IS )

René

jlmodel wrote:

Meyricke put it perfectly. You do not necessarily need IS for sports
photography. I shoot professional wrestling without IS and because of
the aperture(2.8), ISO(400) and shutter speeds(250-500) I use, blur
is simply never an issue. By the way I use Canon's 70-200 2.8L.

Hope this helps.
--
Brian
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jlmodeltnaphotos/

You are shooting at 200mm at 2.8 and 1/250 to 1/500. Ok, suppose you had a 600mm lens. Now that is a max f4 (unless you have a $25000 Sigma zoom) so you are now at 1/125 to 1/250....at 600mm stabilization WILL be needed for most people. Yes you could up the iso, but take that sutuation out of the wrestling and take it to a night time sport with a large area and not as well lit and you could very easily be a iso 3200 AND 1/125 to 1/250. That will still be enough to stop (slower) moments with people movement but not fast enough for hand shake for many people.

So yes , it DOES help ...and the longer you go, the more you need it.

Having said that I find it invaluable at shorter lengths as well...I got some reasonable results (people pics) at 1/20 and 1/25 at 85mm and 145mm (85 1.8 bare and with a 1.7x adapter) yesterday at a Jazz festival.

neil

"Higher shutter speeds" = 1/800, 1/1,000, etc.
Also not talking about hand-holding a fast 600mm lens.
Who wants to do that?

So turn it off when shooting fast action at higher shutter speeds, in general.

Mr Steve wrote:

"Higher shutter speeds" = 1/800, 1/1,000, etc.
Also not talking about hand-holding a fast 600mm lens.
Who wants to do that?

So turn it off when shooting fast action at higher shutter speeds, in
general.

OK, how about a 300 2.8 with a 1.4, 1.7 or 2 x convertor.

That is commonly used for sports.

A 300 2.8 bare stabilzed can still get "people" sports shots ...think outfielder standing waiting to take a catch at 1/125.

Now I use a 300 2.8 manual focus lens and frequently use a 1.7x auto focus adapter with it...so that gives me a stabilized 510mm 4.8 I use it hand held (and would not use it if the camera was not stabilized except very rarely on a tripod)

I could ONLY use that 1/800 and higher speed in broad daylight, that would also seriously limit when I could shoot....in the real world at night or gloomy day or afternoon it will be slower than that and I do not know about you but I still shoot if the shutter speed drops below 1/800.

510mm was a little long at the harness racing on a friday night a couple of weeks ago but could not have used it anyway as the shutter speeds were under 1/100 at iso 3200 (could get some slow shots as the horses came onto the track but used a shorter lens for that.)

neil

neil holmes wrote:

Mr Steve wrote:

"Higher shutter speeds" = 1/800, 1/1,000, etc.
Also not talking about hand-holding a fast 600mm lens.
Who wants to do that?

So turn it off when shooting fast action at higher shutter speeds, in
general.

OK, how about a 300 2.8 with a 1.4, 1.7 or 2 x convertor.

That is commonly used for sports.
A 300 2.8 bare stabilzed can still get "people" sports shots ...think
outfielder standing waiting to take a catch at 1/125.

That's not fast action.

Now I use a 300 2.8 manual focus lens and frequently use a 1.7x auto
focus adapter with it...so that gives me a stabilized 510mm 4.8 I use
it hand held (and would not use it if the camera was not stabilized
except very rarely on a tripod)

I could ONLY use that 1/800 and higher speed in broad daylight, that
would also seriously limit when I could shoot....in the real world at
night or gloomy day or afternoon it will be slower than that and I do
not know about you but I still shoot if the shutter speed drops below
1/800.

All I'm saying is you don't need (and probably shouldn't use) stabilisation when you're using a fast shutter speed. How fast a shutter speed this is depends on how steady your hands are and the focal length of the lens used (and how heavy the lens is).

510mm was a little long at the harness racing on a friday night a
couple of weeks ago but could not have used it anyway as the shutter
speeds were under 1/100 at iso 3200 (could get some slow shots as the
horses came onto the track but used a shorter lens for that.)

If you have to shoot at 1/100 without a tripod, then use IS, VR, or OMG.

It works good. I like it. I need it. I turn it off (most of the time) when shooting at high shutter speeds. I turn it on when shooting at lower shutter speeds.

Mr. Steve

Mr Steve wrote:

All I'm saying is you don't need (and probably shouldn't use)
stabilisation when you're using a fast shutter speed. How fast a
shutter speed this is depends on how steady your hands are and the
focal length of the lens used (and how heavy the lens is).

And all I am saying is the longer the lens the more its needed.

there is a point at which you can be shooting at a fast enough shutter speed to stop motion blur but still get camera shake....that point will depend on what the focal length is, how fast the action is, the individual photographer etc.

If (and yes it is being silly but as an example) you are hand holding a 4000mm lens and you could only get 1/2000, you would need stabilzation...would be great for surfing pics. Ok scale it back to the real world and 1/500 is enough for many human sports to stop action...and many people do use longer than 500mm.

I was replying to a post about stabilzation and sports...it works for me.

neil

neil holmes wrote:

Mr Steve wrote:

All I'm saying is you don't need (and probably shouldn't use)
stabilisation when you're using a fast shutter speed. How fast a
shutter speed this is depends on how steady your hands are and the
focal length of the lens used (and how heavy the lens is).

EXACTLY, and all I am saying is the longer the lens the more its needed.
there is a point at which you can be shooting at a fast enough
shutter speed to stop motion blur but still get camera shake....that
point will depend on what the focal length is, how fast the action
is, the individual photographer etc.

If (and yes it is being silly but as an example) you are hand
holding a 4000mm lens and you could only get 1/2000, you would need
stabilzation...would be great for surfing pics. Ok scale it back to
the real world and 1/500 is enough for many human sports to stop
action...and many people do use longer than 500mm.

I was replying to a psot about stabilzation and sports...it woks for me.

neil

I'll wait until I get delivery on the 4000mm lens I've ordered from Tri-State Camera to test your hypothesis. But I don't plan to use it for surfing pics. I have trouble enough trying to stay on the board. Even without the board's built-in stabilization

Mr. Steve