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?
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?
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
Originally Posted by Dumien
So wouldn't that make it a marketing gimick?
I vote for opiton #5: Not necessary, but nice to have.
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.
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.
On Flickr - Namethatnobodyelsetook on Flickr
R8 | R7 | 7DII | 10-18mm STM | 24-70mm f/4L | Sigma 35mm f/1.4 | 50mm f/1.8 | 85mm f/1.8 | 70-300mm f/4-5.6L | RF 100-500mm f/4-5-7.1L
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.
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
maybe i'm just not suited for econ...haha
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".
We're a Canon/Profoto family: five cameras, sixteen lenses, fifteen Profoto lights, too many modifiers.
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
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></o
<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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote