Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Shutter Speed and Image Stabilization
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
Jan 11, 2019 10:10:27   #
IDguy (a regular here)
 
dpReview just published a comparison of the latest Sony and Nikon mirrorless cameras image stabilization systems. The results are interesting for a number of reasons and likely typical of other current generation image stabilization systems.

They show that the old rule of thumb for 1/lens mm for full frame was a pretty good rule for full frame cameras without image stabilization. But image stabilization blows that away. The test also shows the utility of taking multiple images and picking out the sharpest ones.

I’d post the link but then the thread will get moved to links and no one will look at it.

I’d appreciate discussion of the test and results. What should our new rule be with image stabilization?

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 10:16:20   #
Fotoartist (a regular here)
 
Shooting multiple images works frequently for me.

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 10:19:28   #
Mac (a regular here)
 
IDguy wrote:
I’d post the link but then the thread will get moved to links and no one will look at it.


Your assumption that posts in Links and Resources are not looked at is incorrect. Maybe you don't look in L&R but that doesn't mean that others don't. There is a lot of good information in L&R and it is worth visiting. Give it a try, you will also see that more people than you imagine are there looking too.

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 10:27:15   #
bsprague (a regular here)
 
"What should our new rule be with image stabilization?"

That no longer works. There is no rule. That's because it will vary by brand, model, lens and how shaky the shooter is.

I have a camera with stabilization that "talks" to a lens that also has stabilization. I can shoot at senseless, rule breaking shutter speeds. It is a new normal.

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 10:34:18   #
Tom Daniels (a regular here)
 
Good question. I am not much on numbers. Like to use product and see how good stabilization is.
I have Sony camcorder and FF mirrorless a7s II with stabilization now. I think their stabilization is quite good. Have seen the youtube running with the camera videos that is helpful. What amazes me is this camcorder I owned had a floating lens that was amazing. Like you were working with a steadicam. Footage was good etc. Sony HXR-NX30U Palm Size NXCAM HD Camcorder with Projector & 96GB HDD (Discontinued by Manufacturer) I sold mine after shooting Triathlons and sporting events with it. Sold in a few days and ought Sony PXW X70. This camera was under 2k I think. Its system was too good. I have the Sony a6300 a great aps-c. Doesnt have stabilization. Lens are stabilized. The camera without a stabilized lens will really tell you what happens. It is really not good without it handheld. Testing seem to me not helpful.
If you know about shutter speed and how to hold the camera in different situations you should be OK.
Here is the NX30U. I had great results. Sony put it back on the shelf it was good. Good luck.



| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 10:48:20   #
CHG_CANON (a regular here)
 
What is effective to avoid being sent directly the L&R is to post the link URL later in the results rather than the text of the first post. I believe it's a software sweeper rather than human that does the reassignment to L&R.

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 11:22:23   #
Linda From Maine (a regular here)
 
My rule changed when I became more wobbly, or as bsprague says, "how shaky the shooter is." That is first consideration for many. Otherwise, why not just test the limits of one's own gear by taking multiple shots whenever possible, until a "personal number" is established.

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 11:24:16   #
| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 11:28:26   #
CHG_CANON (a regular here)
 
Linda From Maine wrote:
My rule changed when I became more wobbly, or as bsprague says, "how shaky the shooter is." That is first consideration for many. Otherwise, why not just test the limits of one's own gear by taking multiple shots whenever possible, until a "personal number" is established.

You'd have to shoot rather than read and rant on the internet ....

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 11:29:57   #
Linda From Maine (a regular here)
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
You'd have to shoot rather than read and rant on the internet ....
This topic has started out optimistically and thoughtfully. By tomorrow, your projection will likely have come true.

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 11:55:06   #
Bokehen (a regular here)
 
here's what image stabilization means to me. technically IS is used for composing video work and not so much still photography as the tripod would or should be used. I had the notion to use IS when shooting still life without a tripod simply because my hand shake. But with the correct aperture and ISO setting, the speed of the camera should make up for the shakiness. So I've had my eyes set of mostly IS lenses, but realize IS may or may not allow me the freedom to capture a subject as I would have expected. Thus IS should be used for video work and not single or still photography.

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 12:17:01   #
CHG_CANON (a regular here)
 
All the vendors will surely mourn the loss of the one misinformed customer who limits their photography to situations and lighting where they have a third-party tripod available. Meanwhile, the industry will continue to build and sell lenses and bodies for all forms of photography, selling more than 25-million cameras to the worldwide market in 2017. The use of VR/IS enabled lenses or in-body stabilized mirrorless cameras is not mutually exclusive to using a tripod.

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 12:41:26   #
speters (a regular here)
 
IDguy wrote:
dpReview just published a comparison of the latest Sony and Nikon mirrorless cameras image stabilization systems. The results are interesting for a number of reasons and likely typical of other current generation image stabilization systems.

They show that the old rule of thumb for 1/lens mm for full frame was a pretty good rule for full frame cameras without image stabilization. But image stabilization blows that away. The test also shows the utility of taking multiple images and picking out the sharpest ones.

I’d post the link but then the thread will get moved to links and no one will look at it.

I’d appreciate discussion of the test and results. What should our new rule be with image stabilization?
dpReview just published a comparison of the latest... (show quote)

I frankly can not see anything that's new or news in here.

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 17:45:58   #
IDguy (a regular here)
 
speters wrote:
I frankly can not see anything that's new or news in here.


Try reading the article.

| Reply
Jan 11, 2019 18:44:53   #
IDguy (a regular here)
 


It is.

One thing I didn’t like about the report, and maybe the test, is that it doesn’t take into account photographer variation on hand holding technique. They should replicate the results with at least three photographers. They don’t explicitly state if one photographer took all the test images.

Nonetheless it graphically illustrates that with image stabilization you can get sharp handheld images at shutter speeds much less than the rule of thumb. Maybe a starting new rule should be the lens mm divided by 16 (4 stops)?

It also shows that image stabilization is quite effective for wide angle lenses.

| Reply
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.