Oh IS, How Doth Change Thee.

[Ehcalum]

With all the ongoing questions/comments/rants about IS/VR/OS/SSS, I'd thought I would make an observation.


If IS is so bloody important and neccessary for photography? Why did it only show up in digital cameras and not film cameras/lenses of olde?

[Dumien]

haha i put "a cruch for poor skills" even though i don't think it is... i mean, it's really useful even to the most talented photographer...but the REASON behind it -i believe- is that dummies will be more encouraged to buy ^^


Andy

[Ehcalum]

haha i put "a cruch for poor skills" even though i don't think it is... i mean, it's really useful even to the most talented photographer...but the REASON behind it -i believe- is that dummies will be more encouraged to buy ^^


Andy
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





So wouldn't that make it a marketing gimick?

[crystalshadow]

I vote for opiton #5: Not necessary, but nice to have.

[Benjamin]

I think that has to do with technology development. In the film days our technology didn;t allow us to have IS. Only in the 21th century we made the progress of having all those anti-shake mechanism. If IS were invented in the 80s, I can't see why the camera makers don't put it on the lenses. Therefore I don't believe it's any reason above, it's just a matter of how technology develops.

[DavidEccleston]

IS is useful for taking pictures of non-moving objects, at slower shutter speeds, especially at longer telephoto distances. You don't always have time to set up a tripod, or don't want to lug a tripod with you.


That's not marketing. It's not making up for poor skills. It's necessary optics for a specific set of conditions. If you find yourself in those conditions often (chasing birds, bugs, kids, candid shots, all in low light, or with long telephoto lenses) then buy yourself some IS lenses.

[Jon Ruyle]

I think that has to do with technology development.


I think so, too.


And I agree with crystalshadow- I don't think IS is any of the above. I love it but don't think of it as a crutch or an absolute necessity.

[Dumien]

haha i put "a cruch for poor skills" even though i don't think it is... i mean, it's really useful even to the most talented photographer...but the REASON behind it -i believe- is that dummies will be more encouraged to buy ^^


Andy
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





So wouldn't that make it a marketing gimick?





hem...yes, but I'm seeing it from the consumer side, not the marketing side... I mean, if i'm a beginner i'll go for the lens with IS cause i think it'll improve my photography...i believe this is the first step, THEN marketing sees that consumers want the IS and gives it to them :D


maybe i'm just not suited for econ...haha

[peety3]

Computer-assisted design wasn't a reality until the mid-late 1980s, and I presume the advanced modeling/design of optical systems wasn't mainstream until that time or a little later. Hence, inserting an extra 2-4 lens elements wasn't a task to take lightly. From Wikipedia, "The modern ubiquity and power of computers means that even perfume bottles and shampoo dispensers are designed using techniques unheard of by shipbuilders of the 1960s."


Likewise, affordable gyroscopes suitable for mass-production and low-power usage weren't readily available "back in the day".

[Mark Elberson]

hem...yes, but I'm seeing it from the consumer side, not the marketing side... I mean, if i'm a beginner i'll go for the lens with IS cause i think it'll improve my photography...i believe this is the first step, THEN marketing sees that consumers want the IS and gives it to them :D


maybe i'm just not suited for econ...haha
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]You could also say that beginners go for sensors with higher megapixels counts because they think they'll take sharper pictures. IS may be a good gimmick to get beginners interested in products but there are lots of other gimmicks that do the same thing. That doesn't mean that they are all dubious attempts to get the consumer to spend more money or without value. IS is a powerful tool and like any other too it has limitations. The fact is though that I can take a candid portrait of my son with my 70-200 f/2.8 IS on my 50D at 1/100 and not concern myself with camera shake. The rule of thumb would dictate that I would need a shutter speed of 1/360. That's an incredible difference. Assuming a full 3 stop gain in hand-holdability I could technically shoot with that same set-up at 1/45. I would be fairly comfortable saying that would be extremely difficult without IS.<o:p></o:p>


<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]The last time I shot sports (minor league baseball from the stands) it was a bright sunny day and I really wanted to stop the dramatic action so I turned off my IS on my 100-400L because I was shooting at speeds of 1/1000 or more but with that same lens if I'm trying to shoot a bird on a feeder I always have it on because I may not be able to obtain shutter speeds of over 1/250 without using ISOs over 1600. When I am shooting at 400mm (640mm on 1.6X) I can easily shoot at 1/250 and have a sharp image. Again, I would dare say that would be extremely difficult without IS.

[ShutterbugJohan]

I voted #2, although I think that to be more accurate, the poll should include "Useful technological advancement--kind of like the built-in light meter and AF". As to your question, IS did come out in 1995, after digital had been introduced (I think that digital SLRs date back to 1992), but was already in wide-spread use before digital caught on with the EOS D30.

[Dumien]

Mark,


I totally agree with you. It's just that I wasn't too comfortable typing all that...in my first post I said that it is a valuable tool, as anything is, it's just that -maybe because i'm cheap haha- I always sacrificed it: i bought a 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS and the 24-70, which is also non-IS and i can't complain.


Still, I totally agree with all that you said...everything that's gonna make my life easier is welcome, hahaha


Sorry if there was some kind of misunderstanding


Andy

[Ehcalum]

I'm not agianst IS. I wanted to spark a good conversation about its pros and cons.


Its helps in hail mary territories, but for me, shooting a 70-200 2.8 at 1/100 is doable for me. The "3 stop gain" is pure marketing, similar to saying you get extra reach with a crop factor camera. You don't magically receive 3 stops of expouser.

[Mark Elberson]

Mark,


I totally agree with you. It's just that I wasn't too comfortable typing all that...in my first post I said that it is a valuable tool, as anything is, it's just that -maybe because i'm cheap haha- I always sacrificed it: i bought a 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS and the 24-70, which is also non-IS and i can't complain.


Still, I totally agree with all that you said...everything that's gonna make my life easier is welcome, hahaha


Sorry if there was some kind of misunderstanding


Andy
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>






<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]No worries Andy :) I just had to voice my allegiance to IS!

[Mark Elberson]

shooting a 70-200 2.8 at 1/100 is doable for me. The "3 stop gain" is pure marketing, similar to saying you get extra reach with a crop factor camera. You don't magically receive 3 stops of expouser.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



It's not all marketing. You can easilytest the "3 stop gain" claim. Find out how slow of a shutter speed you can sucessfully hand-hold a lens and see if you can replicate that same shot shooting with shutterspeeds 8X's slower with the helpof IS. I think the full 3 stops is probably best case but I can usually bank on an extra 2 stops of hand-holdability. That would mean that you could hand-hold your 70-200 f.8 at 1/25! Sure, if you're photographing a soccer game 1/25 won't do much for you but if you're shooting a landscape, a flower, etc it's pretty sweet.

[peety3]

It's not marketing, period.


Here's the view of Seattle from Kerry Park, 14/2.8 lens on a 1D Mark III (so 1.3x crop factor) at f/5 ISO 100 for 5 seconds (camera balanced/braced on a ledge):


http://photos.templin.org/albums/seattle200908a/Seattle0820_001.sized.jpg


Here's a view of the Space Needle, using the 200/2IS lens on a 1D Mark III (effective focal length 260mm), handheld at f/2 ISO 1600 1/13th:


http://photos.templin.org/albums/seattle200908a/Seattle0820_004.sized.jpg


Here's a crop from the same picture, where you can make out TVs, people, and I believe some of the underside roof details between levels:


http://photos.templin.org/albums/seattle200908a/Seattle0820_009.sized.jpg


Effective focal length 260mm, so the theory says I'd need 1/260th to handhold that. Four stops of improvement would mean 1/16.25th, so I got a little better than four stops in this case. Go here for the full-res shot: http://photos.templin.org/gallery/seattle200908a/Seattle0820_004?full=1

[Mark Elberson]

Here's a view of the Space Needle, using the 200/2IS lens on a 1D Mark III (effective focal length 260mm), handheld at f/2 ISO 1600 1/13th:


Here's a crop from the same picture, where you can make out TVs, people, and I believe some of the underside roof details between levels:


http://photos.templin.org/albums/seattle200908a/Seattle0820_009.sized.jpg


Effective focal length 260mm, so the theory says I'd need 1/260th to handhold that. Four stops of improvement would mean 1/16.25th, so I got a little better than four stops in this case. Go here for the full-res shot: http://photos.templin.org/gallery/seattle200908a/Seattle0820_004?full=1
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



That's incredible detail! I would love to see what that shot would look like without IS!! 1/13th is truly amazing for an effective 260mm lens.

[peety3]

That's incredible detail! I would love to see what that shot would look like without IS!!
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Ever seen a gray card? [:D]

[Dallasphotog]

I think the IS systems are driven by the available technology as much as any other reason. In the 1980's, it was possible to stabilize gun mounts or motion picture cameras, but the systems were large and consumed large amounts of power. I just think the IS systems became practical about the time digital started to replace film.


I wasn't sold on IS until I got the EF70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM. I've never been able to hand hold at shutter speeds lower than 1/focal length and I usually didn't even like the results until I was a stop or two faster. With IS on the 70-200, I've shot wedding images at 1/30 and been really happy with the images.


Technology has really changed our "sport." Now that the 5DMKII supports ISO 25K, I shoot weddings in the available darkness. Can you imagine telling a wedding pro from the 70's that you were using film with an ISO speed of 25,600, a shutter speed of 1/30 of a second and that you would be capturing 1,500 images between "film" changes. When he regained consciousness, you could tell him the images would beavailable in a cute slide showduring the wedding reception...

[MOF_Sydney]

Ah, these posts are always good to stir up the dust a bit - all in good fun of course. [H]


In the 1980's the gyroscopes and their power supply would have been bigger than the camera and the electronics would have (at least) needed a separate shoulder bag. (Remember the first video cameras with their separate tape deck?) In those days it really was just simpler and easier to carry/use a tripod. IS was used to level the guns in tanks while they bounced over uneven terrain. In a 70 ton tank it really doesn't matter how much the IS system weighs. A wedding or landscape photographer on the other hand ...


IS is simply a tool, like all the other aids from light meters onwards. It is a useful tool though and not a mere gimmick. The ability to hand hold photos that would otherwise need a tripod is a good thing. Essential, no; useful, yes.

[Chuck Lee]

I'm voting "None of the Above" If you had put in a line item that said:


A great feature to have for hand held video, low light photography, andcreative effects.


I would have checked that one.


I really liked the Pentax in-camera image stabilization on my K10D. I still have Takumars that I can use with my Canons but don't have the addded benefit of the in-camera Shake Reduction system. Even a stop at times can make a huge difference. Of-course it's useless for panning, but I don't shoot too many bicyclists or atheletes. Canon and Nikon are being extremely stubborn on this particular issue. But $100-$600 more expensive IS lenses are what most people want to buy. I don't get it. Never will. Don't own an IS lens. If I had unlimited funds I would prefer my 70-200 have IS only because the flash sync speed of my 5D is 1/200. If I could mount this lens to a Pentax K7D, I'd be shooting Pentax. Well, at ISO's of 800 or less. Love my 5 for low-light.

[Cory]

While I don't think it's by any stretch "neccesary" I definately think it's good. I really don't get the people who think it's some crutch or crummy photographers trick to get better pictures. By that logic shouldn't we all be using film cameras and developing our own film or risk being labelled a hack? Or better yet the old 'plates' they used to use? If I can now go take pictures hand held in instances that I would have had to formally use a tripod, how exactly does that detract from the skill it took in all other aspects?


My answer.... why not?

[Daniel Browning]

...why did it only show up in digital cameras and not film cameras/lenses of olde?


Err, because it didn't? Canon's first image stabilized lens, the EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM, was introduced in 1995. Digital photography didn't really become accessible until the introduction of the first sub-$1000 DSLR, the Digital Rebel (2003). That's eight years after the introduction of I.S.