How Important is Image Stabilization?

[Internet Enzyme]

I want to get a lens for the Sony A6300, which does not have sensor stabilization. I'm debating whether to get the Sigma 30mm F1.4 or the Sony 35mm F1.8. The Sony is more expensive, less sharp, smaller, and has SteadyShot. The Sigma has a wider max aperture and t-stop, is sharper, larger, and does not have SteadyShot. Would you choose the less sharp lens over the sharper one if the less sharp one were stabilized? How many stops of stabilization does SteadyShot really supply? Thanks.

 

[golfhov]

I want to get a lens for the Sony A6300, which does not have sensor stabilization. I'm debating whether to get the Sigma 30mm F1.4 or the Sony 35mm F1.8. The Sony is more expensive, less sharp, smaller, and has SteadyShot.

The Sigma has a wider max aperture and t-stop, is sharper, larger, and does not have SteadyShot. Would you choose the less sharp lens over the sharper one if the less sharp one were stabilized?

me personally I would choose the sigma. I almost always choose speed over stabilization. Then again my technique is generally good enough that when shooting humans I can handhold well enough that a slower shutter speed will just result in a blurred subject from THEIR movement. Deosn tmatter if I can handhold 15 seconds. YMMV.

When working landscapes or other stills I usually use a tripod or the like if needed. It allows stretched time and is more reliable than a stabilization system. Also even with stills I would often prefer speed over an extended exposure if the option is there. YMMV

How many stops of stabilization does SteadyShot really supply? Thanks.

You are going to have to google reviews. I thinkaround 3 stops is average estimate. Only CIPA seems to review stabilization in a scientific way . Tried a fast google and I couldn't find CIPA rating. Sony claims 4 stops.

Stabilizers extend your ability and increase your keeper rate. They do not mean that you can get a perfect keeper rate at the full estimate. Same as you cannot get a 100% keeper rate at the limits of your own abilities. Rather the rate will falloff................

 

[Internet Enzyme]

I want to get a lens for the Sony A6300, which does not have sensor stabilization. I'm debating whether to get the Sigma 30mm F1.4 or the Sony 35mm F1.8. The Sony is more expensive, less sharp, smaller, and has SteadyShot.

The Sigma has a wider max aperture and t-stop, is sharper, larger, and does not have SteadyShot. Would you choose the less sharp lens over the sharper one if the less sharp one were stabilized?

me personally I would choose the sigma. I almost always choose speed over stabilization. Then again my technique is generally good enough that when shooting humans I can handhold well enough that a slower shutter speed will just result in a blurred subject from THEIR movement. Deosn tmatter if I can handhold 15 seconds. YMMV.

When working landscapes or other stills I usually use a tripod or the like if needed. It allows stretched time and is more reliable than a stabilization system. Also even with stills I would often prefer speed over an extended exposure if the option is there. YMMV

How many stops of stabilization does SteadyShot really supply? Thanks.

You are going to have to google reviews. I thinkaround 3 stops is average estimate. Only CIPA seems to review stabilization in a scientific way . Tried a fast google and I couldn't find CIPA rating. Sony claims 4 stops.

Stabilizers extend your ability and increase your keeper rate. They do not mean that you can get a perfect keeper rate at the full estimate. Same as you cannot get a 100% keeper rate at the limits of your own abilities. Rather the rate will falloff................

That last point is very interesting. I could just burst shots at slow shutter speeds and one of them has to be sharp if I take a 10 photo burst. Only downside is that the A6300 has a buffer problem. And I only shoot RAW. But in optimal conditions the Sigma does outperform the Sony in pretty much every way.

 

[bjn70]

Depends...

Some of what I photograph benefits from stabilization, some doesn't.

Low light of still subjects benefits, and use of longer focal lengths benefits. On the other hand photography of people that might be moving doesn't benefit. Maybe good stabilization would let you get a usable photo at 1/15 or 1/8 sec, but normal movement of the people in your photo will blur them and might ruin the photo.

My favorite 17-50 (on a crop sensor body) is not stabilized but my 18-200 is.

 

[fishy wishy]

I'd take stabilisation for general photographic purposes, over 2/3 stop faster aperture,.except at very short focal lengths perhaps.

The 2/3 faster aperture is not free. You generally pay for it financially and in size and weight. The stabilisation does not add so much extra weight as the larger front elements do for superfast lenses.

It can also be difficult to get everything you'd like in the narrow focal plane of superfast lenses and they need more careful focusing.

Having said that, what most people do not seem to realise is that you don't get assured per-pixel level sharpness with stabilisation. If you can loosen your standards, then you can get shots at reduced mobile display sizes that are 'good enough', e.g. 200mm 1/15s exposures. But they won't stand up to the kind of scrutiny you would apply for image quality benchmarks, for instance.

If you really care about getting ultimate image quality for landscapes, you need either lots of light for handholding, or a tripod.

I don't think much of Sony's lens prices and wouldn't blame you if you go for the Sigma though.

 

[SushiEater]

I shoot people all the time. In fact 99% of my work is people. 40% posing for a very, very short time. The rest are kind of moving. In other words I simply can't rely on stabilization at all. Do you know that even at 1/125 a smile caught in the process can make face blurry. I personally would not worry about stabilization for a lens that you can keep steady at 1/30. Unless you have hand shaking naturally.

 

[Internet Enzyme]

I shoot people all the time. In fact 99% of my work is people. 40% posing for a very, very short time. The rest are kind of moving. In other words I simply can't rely on stabilization at all. Do you know that even at 1/125 a smile caught in the process can make face blurry. I personally would not worry about stabilization for a lens that you can keep steady at 1/30. Unless you have hand shaking naturally.

 

[Internet Enzyme]

I'd take stabilisation for general photographic purposes, over 2/3 stop faster aperture,.except at very short focal lengths perhaps.

The 2/3 faster aperture is not free. You generally pay for it financially and in size and weight. The stabilisation does not add so much extra weight as the larger front elements do for superfast lenses.

It can also be difficult to get everything you'd like in the narrow focal plane of superfast lenses and they need more careful focusing.

Having said that, what most people do not seem to realise is that you don't get assured per-pixel level sharpness with stabilisation. If you can loosen your standards, then you can get shots at reduced mobile display sizes that are 'good enough', e.g. 200mm 1/15s exposures. But they won't stand up to the kind of scrutiny you would apply for image quality benchmarks, for instance.

If you really care about getting ultimate image quality for landscapes, you need either lots of light for handholding, or a tripod.

I don't think much of Sony's lens prices and wouldn't blame you if you go for the Sigma though.

What I'm wondering is that since the Sigma is larger (by a significant amount), wouldnt it be easier to hold steady by supporting the lens with your left hand and using the right hand to press the shutter button? From my experience, it's a lot easier to hold an iPad steady than an iPhone. What do you think?

It's not just that Sigma has more bokeh than the Sony, its also the fact that the Sigma is much sharper is what makes this a tough decision.

 

[David Pavlich]

For me, it's important. Were I a surgeon, I'd probably kill more patients than save with my less than steady hands. I took this shot handheld and while not perfect, it does show that Tamron's VC is pretty good. This was a rare meeting of the granddaughters, one being from Winnipeg (blonde) and the other from Baton Rouge.



David

--
When one engine fails on a twin-engine airplane, you always have enough power left to get you to the scene of the crash.'
Viewbug: https://www.viewbug.com/member/David_Pavlich

 

[golfhov]

Stabilizers extend your ability and increase your keeper rate. They do not mean that you can get a perfect keeper rate at the full estimate. Same as you cannot get a 100% keeper rate at the limits of your own abilities. Rather the rate will falloff................

That last point is very interesting. I could just burst shots at slow shutter speeds and one of them has to be sharp if I take a 10 photo burst.

this part. It sounds like a very poor method. Although some people with shaky hands find a brief burst does help because they steady the hands a bit after pressing the shutter. You will have to find your own way here

Only downside is that the A6300 has a buffer problem. And I only shoot RAW. But in optimal conditions the Sigma does outperform the Sony in pretty much every way.

To each his own though. If shooting at 1.4 is too shallow and your hands are very unsteady you may find a bigger return on the stabilization instead of the speed

 

[Internet Enzyme]

Stabilizers extend your ability and increase your keeper rate. They do not mean that you can get a perfect keeper rate at the full estimate. Same as you cannot get a 100% keeper rate at the limits of your own abilities. Rather the rate will falloff................

That last point is very interesting. I could just burst shots at slow shutter speeds and one of them has to be sharp if I take a 10 photo burst.

this part. It sounds like a very poor method. Although some people with shaky hands find a brief burst does help because they steady the hands a bit after pressing the shutter. You will have to find your own way here

Only downside is that the A6300 has a buffer problem. And I only shoot RAW. But in optimal conditions the Sigma does outperform the Sony in pretty much every way.

To each his own though. If shooting at 1.4 is too shallow and your hands are very unsteady you may find a bigger return on the stabilization instead of the speed

I think I'm going to do some tests with my RX100 at 50mm equivalent with stabilization turned off and see how many shots I get at various shutter speeds.

 

[noggin2k1]

Easy question is what shutter speed do you shoot at?

If your consistently handheld at 1/50s or slower, take the lens with IS.

 

[Internet Enzyme]

Easy question is what shutter speed do you shoot at?

If your consistently handheld at 1/50s or slower, take the lens with IS.

Since the RX100 has a minimum focal length of 28mm equivalent (and I don't zoom in low light, as the aperture drops off very quickly), I use 1/30 as the minimum. Sometimes when I have a long time to compose a shot and can stay very steady I'll go to 1/15. The lens on the RX100 is lens stabilized.

 

[noggin2k1]

Easy question is what shutter speed do you shoot at?

If your consistently handheld at 1/50s or slower, take the lens with IS.

Since the RX100 has a minimum focal length of 28mm equivalent (and I don't zoom in low light, as the aperture drops off very quickly), I use 1/30 as the minimum. Sometimes when I have a long time to compose a shot and can stay very steady I'll go to 1/15. The lens on the RX100 is lens stabilized.

For me it'd unquestionably be the stabilised option then.

 

[fishy wishy]

Very interesting shot, but mainly for the post-processing.

 

[David Pavlich]

Very interesting shot, but mainly for the post-processing.

It was done mostly in Silver Efex Pro 2 with some minor tweaks in LR.

David

 

[Internet Enzyme]

I know this thread has been long dead, but I bought the Sigma. The increase in sharpness and bokeh, along with the cheaper price led me to the decision. I hope a lack of IS won't be too much of a trouble.