Image Stabilization
Apr 17, 2014 22:50:04 #
The old rule of thumb is your shutter speed needs to be the inverse of your focal length. Example would be 1/200th second if shooting at 200mm. If you are using a crop sensor you need to multiply this by your crop factor, 1.5 or 1.6. Also remember that if your subject is moving, no stabilization will help. Stabilization here can give you a false sense of security.
Apr 18, 2014 00:22:22 #
GoofyNewfie wrote:
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.
:thumbup: :thumbup:
Apr 18, 2014 00:41:19 #
DavidPine
Loc: Fredericksburg, TX
Welcome to the Hog. Necessary, no. When I'm on a tripod or monopod I usually turn it off and select Mup (mirror up)and use a remote shutter release. Good luck.
PhilWissbeck wrote:
Is it necessary for a digital camera to have a lens with stabilization?
Apr 18, 2014 06:44:08 #
Try it out somewhere. Use a fairly long lens (with stabilization)....200mm or more. Pick a spot to hold a single focus point on. Try to hold it steady.....try hard.
Now press the shutter button half way down for a second. This should make you a believer.
Now press the shutter button half way down for a second. This should make you a believer.
Apr 18, 2014 07:07:14 #
Apr 18, 2014 07:17:59 #
Apr 18, 2014 07:22:53 #
LFingar wrote:
Necessary? No.
Very darn nice to have? Yes
The longer the lens, the slower your exposure speed, the more you will appreciate it.
Very darn nice to have? Yes
The longer the lens, the slower your exposure speed, the more you will appreciate it.
Excellent answer :thumbup:
Apr 18, 2014 07:25:24 #
Not necessarily so. I shoot with a 400mm f2.8 lens and almost always have the 1.4 or 2X tele-convertor attached. I do shoot hand held fairly often out of a boat. IS is nice but my lens doesn't have it so I make do. With practice and a technique I use with the lens strap I find I get acceptable results. Now, I'm sure if I had IS, I would use it. Here area a couple of image that I took hand holding this combo on a 7D.
Apr 18, 2014 07:48:17 #
PhilWissbeck wrote:
Is it necessary for a digital camera to have a lens with stabilization?
No, it is not, but your percentage of sharp shots will suffer without stabilization....as a corollary, if one uses a camera with "in body image stabilization", such as the higher end Olympus mft cameras, then lens stabilization is not necessary...
Apr 18, 2014 07:53:48 #
bibsthecat wrote:
The old rule of thumb is your shutter speed needs to be the inverse of your focal length. Example would be 1/200th second if shooting at 200mm. If you are using a crop sensor you need to multiply this by your crop factor, 1.5 or 1.6. Also remember that if your subject is moving, no stabilization will help. Stabilization here can give you a false sense of security.
Not all crop sensors have a crop factor of 1.5 or 1.6....for example the crop factor on many mft cameras is 2.0....
Apr 18, 2014 08:43:25 #
Necessary no but nice to have. Other that VR must be turned off on a tripod, I don't think there is a downside to having VR
.
.
Apr 18, 2014 09:14:39 #
PhilWissbeck wrote:
Is it necessary for a digital camera to have a lens with stabilization?
It's not necessary, but it helps. I take all the help I can get. Still, I practice steady shooting techniques, even with the stabilizing.
Apr 18, 2014 09:31:37 #
tommckibbin
Loc: Liverpool, England.
Is it okay to leave switched on all the time as I sometimes forget to switch on. Talking about handheld only.
Apr 18, 2014 09:41:28 #
PhilWissbeck wrote:
Is it necessary for a digital camera to have a lens with stabilization?
No, it is not necessary.
Apr 18, 2014 09:50:10 #
Guess it all depends on what you are shooting. I shoot with a SIGMA 70-200mm at hockey, football, lacrosse and baseball games and the stabilization sure makes a big difference. With out it I guess that over 50% of the pics would be deleted. Following the action with out stabilization takes the fun out of shooting these action sports.
If shooting people or objects that are stationary I would say that stabilization is not really necessary. This is just my opinion.
If shooting people or objects that are stationary I would say that stabilization is not really necessary. This is just my opinion.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.