Reading mode: Light Dark

Is Image Stabilization That Needed Anymore?

Go to last post
G

geezer52

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
483
Reaction score
0
Location
US
First off, this more of a look forward thought and doesn't apply to older cameras with less sophisticated high ISO ability, nor to people who hand hold telephoto work and probably a few others I haven't thought of.

The Pentax K-X, and the Canon 550, show the ability to very capably deliver, what I would call extremely high ISO images. It seems reasonable to assume this capability will become the norm across all brands, and will probably improve even further. This means photographers will have more flexibility under all lighting conditions to select ISO, aperture, and shutter speed combinations that deliver the image they want hand held without the need for image stabilization, So is shake reduction/image-stabilization that necessary a feature anymore? Especially for your average shooter with average needs

As camera prices go up, is IS a feature you want to keep paying for whether it's an in-body feature or built into every lens that goes on your particular model. Will the IS mechanisms become unnecessary potential points of failure in future cameras. I'm beginning to think so.
 
Yep. I use low ISO and long shutter speeds for landscapes so I prefer IS.

ks
 
I prefer to use NON IS canon L glass simply because of the lower cost, and most of my photography takes place under adequte lighting conditions, and oh by the way - what did Photographers do BEFORE IS like with Film and Early Digital, but high tech marketing wraps everybody into thinking OMG I can't do without it !!!!!
--
WSSA # 165

 
i think IS is way better than ISO in terms of delivering more shooting flexibility with no downside. It's amazing that some lenses give 4 stops benefit with IS. On any camera if you go up four stop in ISO you ALWAYS have more noise. Now give me a prime lens with IS and I'll be ecstatic
 
Regardless of how ISO capability is stretching out on the high end, there will always be some increase in noise with higher ISO. It's a matter of physics.

It's nice to have to option to buy an IS lens. Personally, it's worth the modest extra cost to add that extra margin for handheld shots.

The alternatives are:

1) Use a faster lens. The cost of this approach is almost certainly higher than IS. You end up with a heavier lens that probably has some optical compromises.

2) Carry a tripod. That may work for some pros in some lines of work. For me, an amateur who sometimes carries a camera looking for opportunities to grab an interesting photo, the tripod would be a bit much to carry all the time.

3) Use high ISO settings. As noted above, there's a tradeoff in image noise. There are situations where I don't mind seeing a bit of noise. Then again, there are situations where I'd rather push the ISO down to where I won't have to worry about the noise.

Then again, that's the way things are today... Who knows where sensor technology will take us in the future?
 
just like the mp count, IS is an overrated feature - especially on short lenses. Most of the time I see two types of shots proclaiming the necessity of IS in short lenses:

1) 1/15 second shots of objects you don't want to photograph EXCEPT to prove you can hand-hold at 1/15.

2) shots where there is still motion blur or camera shake because the IS was ill-used and the shot required some other tool (flash, tripod, higher shutter speed, whatever).

I say this as an owner of several IS based lenses. My walk-around lens is the 24-105. In 3 years I probably have made about a dozen shots that required the IS. I've made tens of thousands of other shots where flash, tripod or faster shutter provided a better photo.

Now, on my 100-400L, IS is definitely beneficial.

But, I intentionally bought and use a 70-200 2.8 non-IS. The money I saved over the IS version got me a 580exII flash and battery pack. Those 2 components have done infinitely more for my shots than IS would have done.

Still, for a subset of individuals - people doing wedding work or similar where flash isn't always an option, the IS version of this lens is very beneficial. So I applaud canon for carrying both.

So, just like there are a few photographers that actually DO need 18 or 24 megapixels there are a few that DO need IS at shorter focal lengths. But I think for the masses, anti-shake is just as overrated as the number of megapixels in relation to how it's presence will benefit your photography.
 
If you're reading this forum, I think its safe to say that you know that IS is overrated and can't compare to aperture for flexibility. However, from a cost-benefit perspective for ZOOM lenses, IS adds more keepers per $ than more aperture.

We're all hoping for an optical breakthrough that will bring us both. I would like to see Canon add auto CA and distortion correction to their bodies and then produce a line of lower-cost lenses that had great fundamentals but let the software deal with CA and distortion instead. Tamron does some of this, but I'd like to see more - especially if they supplied the lens with a RAW converter so that you automatically process the imperfections back out.

Finally, the assumption that high ISO on the 550D is light years ahead of previous generations is false. Going from DxOMark scores, its just 0.15 stops better than a 500D, at its most extreme (ISO6400), its just 0.3 stops ahead. In other words, the 550D needs just as much light as previous generations of APS-C cameras. (The big upgrade was actually from the 10D/300D to the 20D/350D, and then another fairly substantial step for the 50D/500D.)
 
On lenses with a built in Auto Focus system. Do, (or can) the same motors that provide the Auto Focus work to provide IS as well? Or do they have to be different in-lens systems
 
IMO IS is a -huge- benefit for hand-held situations, opening up numerous creative possibilities with long lenses and low light situations. Overrated? Hardly. It's invaluable.

It's obviously not important if you use a tripod every time you shoot, or shoot wide angle outdoors.

In addition, if you shoot video with the incredible video DSLRs like T2i, 7D or 5D, IS becomes essential for hand-held shooting.
--
Sam K., NYC
 
There will be situations where the lighting is to the degree in which you can get away with say a 1/10 shutter speed shot for your landscape and still pull off the shot. Now in this case, if you can get the same shot with IS and no tripod, or with out IS and using a tripod, which would you prefer for convenience? Lugging a tripod everwhere is not always practical. What if it is not a photography day for you, what if it is a board meeting day or whatever, you can still have a small holster bag and carry your camera, but not always can you walk around with your tripod.
--

Darkness is the monster and your shutter is your sword, aperture your shield and iso your armor. Strike fast with your sword and defend well with your shield and hope your armor holds up.
 
but there IS a downside... motion blur will still be motion blur, with or without IS. IS is pretty useless when shooting sports in low light, for instance... in this case, shutter speed is key and the only way to gain shutter speed is to either open the aperture or go to a higher ISO... also, IS is actually going to do weird things like make the background sharp and the subject blurred because the IS canceled out your panning.
bbz said:
i think IS is way better than ISO in terms of delivering more shooting flexibility with no downside. It's amazing that some lenses give 4 stops benefit with IS. On any camera if you go up four stop in ISO you ALWAYS have more noise. Now give me a prime lens with IS and I'll be ecstatic
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/billko
 
Bill Ko said:
but there IS a downside...
Click to expand...
Is not a downside. You can always turn it off.
Bill Ko said:
motion blur will still be motion blur, with or without IS. IS is pretty useless when shooting sports in low light, for instance... in this case, shutter speed is key and the only way to gain shutter speed is to either open the aperture or go to a higher ISO... also, IS is actually going to do weird things like make the background sharp and the subject blurred because the IS canceled out your panning.
Click to expand...
No, IS will not cancel panning. It can only correct relatively small vibrations. Some lenses have panning IS mode.

Motion blur can be artistic. Camera shake - never.
 
Good question, and makes for interesting reading from the responses.

Of course the responses you get (including mine) are going to be personal opinions based on the experience we've had, plus the type of photography we're focused on. (Plus I could be plain wrong too) ;)

Here's my 2c worth:

In my opinion IS is an added enhancement / tool that can be useful in some situations, but not all .

On the other hand higher ISO is also an added enhancement / tool that can be useful in some situations too, but not all .

These two features sometimes overlap. (ie, in low light you can up the ISO or use IS). But other situations IS will be a better option, and in others ISO will be a better option. (ie, as someone has already pointed out ISO is better for freezing sport, over IS, and someone else has already pointed out that IS can give 4 stops advantage which could mean the difference in noise / IQ in other situations).

So - either of these tools when used in the right situation can be of help, and each one gives different unique benefits, again depending on the situation.

How much benefit each tool will be will depend on what you photograph (ie, Portraits / People / Sports / Landscapes, etc, etc). Because of this IS may not be a bit deal to one photographer, but a big deal to another. And, because of this you'll always get different answers from different people.

In the end, whether it's still of benefit or not will be up to each individual. Personally, I'm glad it's still around! :)
 
geezer52 said:
Wouldn't using a good tripod make IS unnecessary?
Click to expand...
IS can help on a tripod, for instance in the range of shutter speeds where mirror slap shows up. AFAIK, IS only causes problems with the latest generation of IS lenses over long (i.e. bulb) exposures.
 
Funny how so many posters (including the OP) seem to take the attitude that good high-ISO performance is a substitute for IS, as if only one can be used at a time. Hello, people: having 4 stop IS + a clean ISO3200 sensor is better than one alone. In some situations one works better than the other, and you can even - gasp - use them together!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top