Image Stabilization
Apr 17, 2014 09:45:04 #
Apr 17, 2014 09:45:51 #
PHW
Loc: Madison, WI
PhilWissbeck wrote:
Is it necessary for a digital camera to have a lens with stabilization?
Apr 17, 2014 09:47:11 #
If you use a tripod, many lens makers recommend turning off the stabilizer.
I would imagine a short, lightweight lens used at high shutter speed with steady hands would also be OK :)
I would imagine a short, lightweight lens used at high shutter speed with steady hands would also be OK :)
Apr 17, 2014 09:49:55 #
PhilWissbeck wrote:
Is it necessary for a digital camera to have a lens with stabilization?
Not necessary, but it sure is nice. Lots more 'keepers'.
Apr 17, 2014 09:50:45 #
PhilWissbeck wrote:
Is it necessary for a digital camera to have a lens with stabilization?
Hand held photography has been around almost forever. Stabilization only a few years.
Some of the best lenses do not have it.
Apr 17, 2014 10:01:14 #
PhilWissbeck wrote:
Is it necessary for a digital camera to have a lens with stabilization?
Necessary - no. Can it help - on long and zoom lenses, or if you have issues with minor hand shake, yes it can. Check out the thread below that Lfingar started yesterday.
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-202038-1.html
Apr 17, 2014 10:01:31 #
Apr 17, 2014 10:04:20 #
PhilWissbeck wrote:
Is it necessary for a digital camera to have a lens with stabilization?
Necessary? No.
Very darn nice to have? Yes
The longer the lens, the slower your exposure speed, the more you will appreciate it.
Apr 17, 2014 10:09:39 #
Some cameras have image stabilization in the body (the sensor moves to compensate) Pentax, Olympus, Sony...
...so it's not needed in the lens with some of those, hopefully making the lenses less expensive.
Here is an article comparing both lens and in-body image stabilization.
My shorter lenses don't have it, but I couldn't live without it on my 70-200.
Welcome to the 'hog, Phil.
...so it's not needed in the lens with some of those, hopefully making the lenses less expensive.
Here is an article comparing both lens and in-body image stabilization.
My shorter lenses don't have it, but I couldn't live without it on my 70-200.
Welcome to the 'hog, Phil.
Apr 17, 2014 10:32:18 #
PhilWissbeck wrote:
Is it necessary for a digital camera to have a lens with stabilization?
Depends on a number of things. Very steady haands at less than 100mm hand held probably not. Over 200mm hand held probably a necessity. Tripod,no Slow shutter speeds absolutely. Panning or camera blur no. As I have a tremor in my hands, wouldn't shoot without IS
Apr 17, 2014 12:28:02 #
PhilWissbeck wrote:
Is it necessary for a digital camera to have a lens with stabilization?
No more than is/was necessary for a film camera. It's nice to have for hand held photos. It is especially helpful in situations with low light, low ISO or come combination there of. Personally I try to abide by the [shutter speed] >=1/[focal length] rule and have image stabilization for insurance.
Apr 17, 2014 13:10:45 #
None of my lenses are stabilized...
but my camera body is :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsVGaTcyWZ0
but my camera body is :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsVGaTcyWZ0
Apr 17, 2014 17:04:48 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
We are always considering how we can push our equipment to make certain shots work, whether it is high ISO, fast apertures, or slow shutter speeds. Image stabilization is a tool which allows us to take some shots which otherwise would need more equipment, like a tripod, or would simply not be as good. Like most tools, we can live without it, but sometimes it is just what we need.
Apr 17, 2014 18:21:43 #
[
My shorter lenses don't have it, but I couldn't live without it on my 70-200.
Welcome to the 'hog, Phil.[/quote]
As it happens, several of my shorter lenses do indeed have image stabilization, while my Canon 70-200 f4L doesn't. I am VERY content with the tack-sharp imagery this lens produces.
My shorter lenses don't have it, but I couldn't live without it on my 70-200.
Welcome to the 'hog, Phil.[/quote]
As it happens, several of my shorter lenses do indeed have image stabilization, while my Canon 70-200 f4L doesn't. I am VERY content with the tack-sharp imagery this lens produces.
Apr 17, 2014 18:49:13 #
To shoot handheld at 300mm, it's pretty difficult without it. It really makes a difference.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.