Using in-body and lens stabilization together (Page 3): For most of the major camera makers the lens stabilization and the IBIS seem to get along fine working together, especially if...

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

For most of the major camera makers the lens stabilization and the IBIS seem to get along fine working together, especially if the lens is the same brand. For third parties like Sigma and Tamron it's probably case by case. I was watching one of Casey's videos (of Camera Conspiracies - funny guy) where he described the IBIS and lens stabilization working together as two dancers trying to sync with each other - some do it well and others not so well - he shoots 100% video which is more obvious how the stabilization is working. He advocates turning off one or the other for video.

I would turn off BOTH IBIS and VR/OIS/VC/etc (whatever the lens maker calls it) in certain situations - (1) if the camera is mounted on a stable tripod and remotely triggered, AND/OR (2) you are using shutters of 1/2000 or faster. In those cases stabilization might actually induce unwanted blur.

Canisdirus

IS is fully developed ... everyone loves to concentrate on it...but it's the least essential tech.

Longer lenses...go with the lens IS. Medium lenses...go with the body.

Anytime you are shooting over 1/1000th ... you don't need it unless you are a really sloppy shooter...or panning wildly.

Short lenses...don't need any at all...unless you have a medical condition.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Canisdirus wrote:

IS is fully developed ... everyone loves to concentrate on it...but it's the least essential tech.

Longer lenses...go with the lens IS. Medium lenses...go with the body.

Anytime you are shooting over 1/1000th ... you don't need it unless you are a really sloppy shooter...or panning wildly.

Short lenses...don't need any at all...unless you have a medical condition.

Hopefully, the larger community will read all these ideas and do the exact opposite, as every idea ignores how to best to use modern digital technology to achieve better results.

Looking at your spectacular flying bees, I wonder if you followed the ideas above too? Or too, did the opposite?

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Canisdirus wrote:

IS is fully developed ... everyone loves to concentrate on it...but it's the least essential tech.

Longer lenses...go with the lens IS. Medium lenses...go with the body.

Anytime you are shooting over 1/1000th ... you don't need it unless you are a really sloppy shooter...or panning wildly.

Short lenses...don't need any at all...unless you have a medical condition.

By the same token, what about tripods - are they going to become a thing of the past? Don't the same rules apply to them? I still use my tripod for composing my landscapes on the monitor - but I do use my IS systems otherwise.

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

NO... Tripods, Monopods, IBIS, ILIS, fencerails, and steady hands all contribute to better images... esp. for seniors who make up a large % of this site. Lock the mirror up also if you are REALLY paranoid if you are not mirrorless.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

MrBob wrote:

NO... Tripods, Monopods, IBIS, ILIS, fencerails, and steady hands all contribute to better images... esp. for seniors who make up a large % of this site. Lock the mirror up also if you are REALLY paranoid if you are not mirrorless.

cyclespeed Loc: Calgary, Alberta Canada

Sony rep here in Calgary actually spoke to me with the answer being only use one type of image stabilizer technology and don't combine them. Also, don't use IS or in Sony lingo OSS when shooting long exposures because the camera will start to search while the exposure is running.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

cyclespeed wrote:

Sony rep here in Calgary actually spoke to me with the answer being only use one type of image stabilizer technology and don't combine them. Also, don't use IS or in Sony lingo OSS when shooting long exposures because the camera will start to search while the exposure is running.

Where Canon EOS technology says to use both, always.

nealbralley Loc: Kansas

Prbrandon wrote:

What do the forum members advise about using in-body image stabilization and lens stabilization together? I've found conflicting opinions in my online searches on the topic.

(I use a Canon R5 with RF 24-70 and RF 100-500 lenses.)

Of course they work well together. Manufacturers wouldn’t have made them if they didn’t. Every time something new comes out, some folks say that the new thing won’t work with the older stuff. That is like telling folks to turn off lens stabilization while the camera is on a tripod — what a bunch of hooey! I have found zero impact from doing so — zip, nada! Some folks have vivid imaginations! They are just messing with your mind.

maciej

Prbrandon wrote:

What do the forum members advise about using in-body image stabilization and lens stabilization together? I've found conflicting opinions in my online searches on the topic.

(I use a Canon R5 with RF 24-70 and RF 100-500 lenses.)

With the RF system you can use both. I do all the time. Canon,indeed, recommends using both for increased stability.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

CHG_CANON wrote:

When one can pass around ancient, outdated, and outright wrong information on the internet, why bother with facts or to read the manual?

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

CHG_CANON wrote:

Hopefully, the larger community will read all these ideas and do the exact opposite, as every idea ignores how to best to use modern digital technology to achieve better results.

Looking at your spectacular flying bees, I wonder if you followed the ideas above too? Or too, did the opposite?