a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

Call it serendipity. I had experimented last season with turning off SteadyShot and at the same time increasing shutter speeds. This is about birds, some in flight and mostly not. But birds who are not flying are usually not holding still either; they move their heads and other parts almost constantly. That technique made it harder to use the camera and did not satisfy me, either. To be clear, SS works for the live view, not only for the moment of exposure.

This post is only about my RX10 IV and my a6500. It may apply to other Sony's and it's possible it would apply to other brands and cameras but I have no data on that. The RX10 IV has a maximum aperture of F 4.0 and the FE70200 on my a6500 is also F 4.0 maximum. Both are very sharp wide open. The lenses are 220 mm and 200 mm respectively, at full zoom. The equivalent (full frame) focal lengths are 600 and 300 respectively.

Recently, for other reasons, I switched my settings as an experiment. I had been using shutter priority at 1/1250 or 1/1600 with and without SteadyShot. I was never satisfied with the IQ. I changed to "almost manual" (a recent thread argued that auto-ISO + M is not really manual). I used the opportunity to close down to F 5.6 or even a bit more and slowed the shutter to 1/800. Below that, the motion of the subject becomes a problem. The light levels were approximately "sunny 16" but the birds are not always in direct light; hence auto-ISO. I use the Zebra feature to avoid over exposing the bright areas on the birds and that works very well via Exposure Compensation when indicated. Since the Sony's are "live view" this can be done in real time and chimping is not needed.

The slight increase in DOF helped. But I think there was a noticeable increase in image quality gained by letting SteadyShot work. I'm not sure, but there is a lot of data to suggest that it can't work correctly at the higher shutter speeds and Sony says to turn it off when using a tripod. I was not using a tripod. I've had previous threads on that subject and never came to an unarguable conclusion. These results support the idea that SS doesn't work well at higher speeds but the accurate numbers are still hypothetical.

A few shots were blurred because of subject motion but overall, the results are an improvement over my previously favored settings. The bonus is that increasing DOF sometimes gets more of the bird in sharp focus. In addition, if there are multiple birds there is a better chance of getting both within acceptable DOF.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

I almost forgot to mention an even faster way to make minor exposure adjustments very quickly on the two Sony's that I use.

Since the view in the view finder is set to show the effects of exposure settings, I don't have to do much guessing. I have my focus and meter areas set for central, small spots anyhow.

If I'm seeing an overexposure indication I can often move the metering spot to a slightly different aim point and then use AEL (Auto Exposure Lock) which is a button/toggle on the back of the camera. Then I can still use a half-press for focus without changing exposure. I find this is faster and easily as accurate as the EC control, especially on the a6500 which requires more fussing than the knob on the RX10.

The point of this is to avoid blown highlights when photographing, for example, white birds on a sunny day.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

Experimentation is what keeps a lot of folks interest in photography at higher levels, and these days we have equipment (supercomputer cameras) that allow us to do many things to enable photographs that would be extremely difficult otherwise. Count me as one who likes to experiment, and does it often. Will be interesting to see what others have to say.

I have some older A-mount Sony bodies and the SS IBIS is a great feature, it works well, and if you don't need it, can be turned off at any time. Same goes for my Nikon gear with lens VR. I do feel that image stabilization of any sort would suffer from a gradual reduction in desired effect as shutter speeds increase, a point of diminishing returns would come into play, as at some point everything is moving so fast that it does not have time to "settle" or truly stabilize, and can induce movement of it's own. I have never experimented with finding that "point of diminishing returns" for image stabilization, but may at some point, if for no other reason than it would be "good to know".

I see this in the Nikon Lenses with L-VR, and I see it in the Sony SS IBIS systems. It stands to reason that at some point the process will start to break down because of the need for floating or moving parts to "settle", and we have all seen the ways that vibration can creep back into our efforts to stabilize the equipment. During shots on those bright and sunny days, mine is often turned off, as I'm using shutter speed and the sweet spot of the lens to get what I'm after, when conditions/lighting drops off, I turn it back on. Walking through the woods is a good example; in an open clearing with bright light and a variety of subjects, shutter speed generally rules, when I'm back in the trees/shadows the IS/VR comes back on, and ISO might have to go up some, because even on a bright day it can be very shadowy in the woods, and things are still moving around. And (oh my) auto ISO might even be in the pic, as I may be on the move and need the speed of the computer to keep up with the shots I'm cranking out.

Arguments about what is real photography and when is "manual" really manual are great conversation/debate fodder, but sort of pointless (to me). If "Full Manual No Automation" earns someone a merit badge, that is great, but if that same person uses some of the features of their modern camera to capture a stunning shot, how does that diminish the result. It will likely be processed either in body, or in PP anyway, unless a SOOC purist.

Since I have the expertise and knowledge of approx. 50 years behind the camera (film & digital) and can work successfully in either medium, I can go full manual, or full auto, or anything in between.... but, until I start using a camera with no automation/no computer except for output storage (film or card) I'll be making use of the stuff I paid for. YMMV

jaziey.g

Don, the 2nd son Loc: Crowded Florida

tomad Loc: North Carolina

I shoot a lot of birds in flight with my Sony RX10 IV. I always use manual with auto ISO (set to max out at 800) and a shutter speed of 1/2000 or 1/2500 to stop motion. Are you saying that the images may come out better if I turn off SteadyShot?

Larry Powell Loc: Columbus OH

I shoot Sony Alpha 77 II. I see no reason to turn off IBIS unless on a tripod as Sony instructs. Why turn it off? Using a fast shutter speed negates some of the effect of the in body but so what. Removing motion blur is what we seeks and both methods work without degradation.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

I tried to make clear that I think that above some speed (a threshold, not on a continuum) the SteadyShot's movement and the shutter speed conflict. I can't prove it but my results at my lower speed and greater F# seem to support that. I can't say anything about the Alpha 77 because I've never even seen one. But more importantly, it's not even a mirrorless and may have a much different IS system. There is a fair amount of discussion on the internet about this and some of it supports my latest belief but not all of it.

Sony has a reason for saying turn it off when using a tripod and if it were just not needed I suspect they would not bother. There is likely, therefore, some negative interaction to be avoided.

As always, YMMV.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

I don't know. I still use 1/2500 for BIF's because I want to stop the motion blur from fast moving wings. For non-flying birds I am convinced that my results are improved.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

a6k - there's no real mystique to the alpha a77 II (or any other SLT, for that matter) - they work just like any other DSLR, with the exception they use EVFs - like the a6000 series. Part of the image is siphoned off the "translucent" mirror for use by the EVF. This cuts down on the light, a bit, but, other than that - they perform quite effectively, as DSLRs - with the added bonus of an EVF. They also have SteadyShot, and it's something which is quite beneficial to handheld shots, regardless of the shutter speed, employed. I, for one, would never EVER consider using any of my SLTs, without using SteadyShot. BTW - you had indicated here, you'd never seen an alpha a77 II. Here's a photo of all three of my SLTs (77 II in center.)

L-R - a58, a77 II, a77

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

I am puzzled by replies that argue against my recommendation to turn off SteadyShot.

I didn’t do that. I pointed out the fact that Sony does when using a tripod. I also pointed out that many people on the internet suggested it for high shutter speeds. I also said I don’t really know.

Lastly, I reported that my shots are better at a somewhat slower shutter speed. That’s fact, not argument. FYIO.

And I don’t know or care about other cameras. Sorry.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

No, but you did indicate you thought it was a good idea to turn off Steadyshot when using high shutter speeds … EVEN POINTING OUT A CONFLICT - "the SteadyShot's movement and the shutter speed conflict."

a6k - I really don't care whether you care about other cameras, or not - but you did point out you'd never seen a Sony alpha a77 II - so, since I had a pic here, handy - thought I'd post it so you could see one.

BTW - the primary reason I gravitated towards Sony SLTs to begin with, is - because of the IBIS. After using both Canons and Nikons for many years, I realized, as I got older, it became less feasible for me to handhold either camera, and guarantee a steady - shake-free shot. So, I switched to a Sony SLT, and found myself enjoying photography once again, and no longer banging my head against a wall - in recognition of the fact I could no longer hold an ILIS camera steady enough for a sharp photo. Steadyshot gave me back my camera life. I will NEVER switch it off - even for a tripod shot (unlikely event, though.)

Larry Powell Loc: Columbus OH

a6K, I do not feel anyone is arguing with you. I am merely expressing what I have experienced.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

I am not arguing that anyone should or should not turn off SteadyShot. I am saying that on my two cameras, slowing the shutter to 800 or lower from 1250 or 1600 improved the results. YMMV. There are many situations where a higher shutter speed is needed and when it is, the question of whether the result will be better or worse with or without SteadyShot is unresolved. I don't know the answer. I also cannot quantify how much of the improvement is from improved lens performance at higher F stop and how much, if at all, is from some unknown interaction between shutter speed and the speed of the mechanism of SteadyShot.

It was intended as a tip. It's worth what you make of it. I have stopped "watching" this thread.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Larry … I agree with you - every bit helps - IBIS, high shutter speeds (when slower ones aren't necessary) ..

The more you can do - leading to a more shake-free image, the better … Steadyshot works!!!!