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.
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
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.
Originally Posted by Dumien
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]No worries AndyI just had to voice my allegiance to IS!
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.
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):
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:
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
We're a Canon/Profoto family: five cameras, sixteen lenses, fifteen Profoto lights, too many modifiers.
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:
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.
Ever seen a gray card? []
We're a Canon/Profoto family: five cameras, sixteen lenses, fifteen Profoto lights, too many modifiers.
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...
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
