I haven
I haven
Ah yes, a good point Stephen. You don
Originally Posted by stephensphotos
Ah...that's "THE THRUTH" .... See, I learn every day []
If what you say is really the truth, I made the worst decision of my
life when buying the 24-105 f4L IS instead of the 24-70 f2.8L when
buying the 5D2 (prices where pretty much equal). Funny, it doesn't feel
like that at all. I borrow my firends 24-70 from time to time, but I'm
never really happy with it.
I don't know what I'm talking about I guess. My keeper rate with IS
in macro-photography(without flashing) is higher than ever. Putting down
a tripod would not only be too slow for the things I shoot, but would
also mean that I have to carry it every time. And by the time I have
set-up my stuff, the little bugs and flies would have left already
probably.
I find my photos much sharper with IS when I'm at the edge of
shutterspeed when taking photos of people. I'm not standing still and I
don't take 5 seconds to fully stabilize before I take a shot. Definitely
not when I have to take a 100 in a row and have to direct people while
I'm at it. I rather use IS and worry about the composition, than don't
use IS and also have to worry about camera-shake every shot.
If I would be shooting 1 model at 1/100s without IS and I would be
walking around her. Take a full body portrait, walk to her, compose
quickly take a head shoulder portrait, get low and take a shot, switch
from portrait to landscape and take a shot. I'm sure I wouldn't be happy
with the sharpness in at least half the photos. This happens a lot in
weddings (at least with me) and I'm very happy I have IS when I'm using
such shutterspeeds. That's the truth for me.
I
don't know what *** is, but if I would have put in a word it would be
"TOP". Not only do I appreciate IS with portraits. I also like it for
sports, believe it or not, even at high shutterspeeds when it stabilizes
my viewfinder and I can compose much easier. And macro really hits the
nail. Try composing a 1:1 macro without IS and then with IS. For me it's
worth paying a little extra. Plus f2.8 or faster sounds nice, but for a
lot of photos you need more depth of field to work with. Cheap lenses
aren't bad, you just can't work with them.
If I would be a doctor,
I would diagnose you with a severe case of L-Disease(worst I've ever
seen). You probably only use faster lenses than f2.8 with a Red Ring
which cost more than average camera people buy.
Oh. Ok. I'm glad you're here to correct all of us, then.
Should probably have stopped yourself there, but.....
We're all eyes.
Lots of "I's" in that sentence, and quite a few "my's" as well. Do we all shoot the same subject matter as you? No. Are we all you? Thank goodness, no.
Ah yes, like those CHEAP L-series telezooms and supertele lenses in the $1,200 to $13,000 range. Quite the gimick.
Well, there is a lot of agreement that the person who put forth that drivel has a loose grip on reality. At least he has lots of company out there in the world.
By the way, while I certainly don't agree with KR's statement, this shot was taken handheld - a 0.5 s exposure at 95mm. I was standing on a viewing bridge that was not wide enough for a tripod. I'm sure glad Canon's marketing ploy succeeded in getting me to buy such a cheap lens (it only cost $2,500).
[url="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dr_brain/5515135844/in/set-72157626112302225/lightbox/][/url]
EOS 5D Mark II, EF 70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L IS II USM @ 95mm, 1/2 s, f/5.6, ISO 100
I like you. You're funny.
Nice Shot Neuro!
Stephen, welcome to the forum. Certainly all opinions are welcome here! Perhaps, not the best strategy to call everyone out with your first post. Regardless, your viewpoints regarding IS are limited to your types of shooting where people are slightly moving in wedding photos, or they're running away from you as a photojournalist. I think most people here would agree with your assertion regarding moving subjects, however just because you don't have a use for IS, doesn't mean it's a gimmick or unnecessary.
Hopefully, you will see the benefits of IS after reading through this entire thread...; such as Macro photography, stationary objects in low light, locking the image in the viewfinder for faster moving subjects, as well as steadying a long heavy lens. I do feel that IS is less useful for shorter, faster, lenses that are easier to handhold, however it certainly does have it's place and I could have used it a few times on my 24-70mm f/2.8L, especially from a boat at dusk, or when I would like to reduce the amount of noise in the photo by choosing a slower SS for landscapes or street architecture at dusk, or indoor use without a flash.
Johns photo demonstrates a few concepts; one is that IS definitely has it's place to use slower shutter-speeds to reduce the need for a tripod without introducing camera shake. It also demonstrates that IS isn't only useful for stationary objects, as the main subject in this photo is moving, it's also useful for artistic renditions of moving subjects. Without IS, you're probably looking at a SS of 1/125sec at 95mm and the water won't blur with that exposure. This waterfall is an interesting example, because it lends itself to 2 points in this thread, such as using slower shutter-speeds handheld with IS, and the fact that IS does reduce the need for a tripod. The combination of a slower SS and IS allows the waterfall to be blurred, whereas a higher ISO and faster SS wouldn't help in this case. I would never be bold enough to suggest that tripods are obsolete, but I would agree that with the advent of IS for camera shake and higher ISO's to increase shutter-speeds and DOF, that the need for tripods have been diminished over the years.
Rich
Image stabilization was invented by Canon and was first released into production in 1995 with the EF 75-300/4-5.6 IS USM. The technology proved so useful that it was soon implemented for the EF 300/4L IS USM in 1997, and the fast super telephoto primes (EF 300/2.8L IS, 400/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS, 600/4L IS) around 1999. Later lenses, mostly telephoto zooms and primes, also received IS, all the while improving the stabilization technology with faster processors, which enabled more responsive correction.
The reason why these lenses got IS was because their focal lengths are so long that, if one were to shoot them handheld, the shutter speed would need to be quite fast. Combined with a relatively slow aperture (the fastest of these lenses were f/2.8, and most were f/4 or slower), this clearly resulted in a restriction in the allowable range of light conditions for which an acceptable exposure was possible. For example, at 300mm f/4, without IS one could not achieve a reliable handheld exposure below EV +12. With 2-stop IS, that improves to a more manageable EV +10. Were this lens given a modern IS system with 4-stop correction, it would be able to shoot at EV +8, which is somewhere around 1/15 s at f/4.
But, as we all know, there
Wow, I really have offended some tech fundies by suggesting that something that they swear by is not really necessary. If I am really as crazy as they suggest I am, and IS is really something that is going to change my life, then I wonder how all those photographers of the past such as the ones who were on Omaha beach on D-day for example, got a single useful photograph the whole time they were there. How on earth did they have the patience to use those cumbersome 4X5" and 6x6" hasselblad, 35mm and movie cameras, that did not have any IS.
When I started shooting, all I had was a cheapo kit lens attached to a film camera. There were no histograms, immediate reviewing of images, or adjusting your ISO midshoot. This is why I am a bit of a purist and really dont like people who swear by a new gizmo or gadget that fixes a problem that experience could have avoided. I hate shooting digital, but I
Wow....I sure hope it wasn't me that got this thread turned up in volume.
If so, I apologize. It was not my intent. []
First, you may want to go back and read my previous post.
Second, by your reasoning, why shouldn
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote