No stabilization needed

Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
6,505
Location
Wolfe City, Texas
I've been seeing so many discussions in forums about the merits or the necessity of image stabilization. I'll start off by saying that I appreciate what this technology does for our ability to shoot in adverse conditions, hand holding our camera with amazingly low shutter speeds. Compared to many, I'm just a neophyte when it comes to photography, having gotten into it seriously maybe 10 years ago. As I grew in my understanding and upgraded my equipment, stabilization was never part of the equation. Being a Nikon shooter, I eventually had a D700 and shot regularly with a 12-24, 17-55, 24-70, 35, 50 ,85, 135 mm lens, none of which had stabilization - OK, I did have the 70-200 which did. I never felt at a disadvantage and did my best to learn good techniques in holding the camera. Now, it seems that we can't live with a camera that "only" has a 2-axis system, it has to be 5. We judge the merits of a system on whether it has stabilization in the body, or if it's in the lens... I don't know that there really is a moral to this story except that - isn't technology grand?
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
1,860
Location
Rural Virginia
I found VR to be useful on occassion, but I never fully appreciated the benefit of stabilization until I started doing video. Most of the time a tripod/monopod is just too inconvenient for me to use so 95% of the time I am handholding when capturing video. Couldn't do it without some form of stabilization.
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
1,299
Location
Melbourne, FL
The significance of IS depends, broadly, on subject, gear and physiology. If you often get at, or below, 1/focal length point, IS is very useful. A long time ago a photographer wrote that he lost one stop of steadiness every 10 years of age pas 30. I haven't lost that much, but I'm not as steady as I was 40 years ago.

For Olympus cameras, 2 axis vs. 5 axis is more than the number of axis'; they work very differently. The 2 axis only stabilizes the sensor for about 1 second. If you pause more than a second between a half press on the shutter and firing the shutter, there was no IS. The 5 axis IS can be set to stay on as long as the shutter is half pressed. It also really works significantly better than 2 axis version.

From personal experience, I wouldn't make any general statements about the effectiveness of in body vs. in lens stabilization. The first IS I had was the D7000 and the kit lens; IS worked great. 55-200 was useless on the D7000, but worked fine on my D200. Tamaron 70-300 really good on all my Nikons. IS is very lens/body/shutter speed dependent.

What I would like to see more of is electronic shutters. No moving parts, no vibration, no sound and I'm not getting younger. Panasonic uses them in some of their cameras, I'd like to see them used more.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
15,559
Location
Los Angeles, USA
I'll take IS/VR in any form. I rarely use tripods or monopods and rely on most my shooting handheld. I shoot in a lot of low light situations and the use of high ISO and image stabilization gives me every advantage possible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Apr 3, 2006
Messages
5,615
Location
Texas
What I would like to see more of is electronic shutters. No moving parts, no vibration, no sound and I'm not getting younger. Panasonic uses them in some of their cameras, I'd like to see them used more.

These are in almost all compact cameras. It is not a plus. It's just inexpensive.

A mechanical shutter covers the sensor, keeps light off it. Then it opens for only a very brief exposure.

An electronic shutter enables/disables the CCD sensor, turning it off. This is necessary for CCD anyway, to shift the image out of it. But it does not cover the sensor, light is still hitting it, and bright light can have bad effect, called blooming.

It is good to cover our sensors. :smile:
 
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
5,791
Location
los angeles
These are in almost all compact cameras. It is not a plus. It's just inexpensive.

A mechanical shutter covers the sensor, keeps light off it. Then it opens for only a very brief exposure.

An electronic shutter enables/disables the CCD sensor, turning it off. This is necessary for CCD anyway, to shift the image out of it. But it does not cover the sensor, light is still hitting it, and bright light can have bad effect, called blooming.

It is good to cover our sensors. :smile:

I've used the ES in both the V1 and now my G5 without adverse effects. I don't use it primarily but having the ability to choose is very convenient.
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2006
Messages
5,615
Location
Texas
Here is a sample of blooming, comparing a D70 and D80, both of which use the SAME CCD sensor, but D70 has electronic shutter, and D80 has focal plane shutter.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D80/D80A5.HTM#ccdgating

I get the V1 models mixed up, nomenclature wise. Both are CMOS, yet the inexpensive model has electronic shutter (very unusual on CMOS, but with very slow flash sync). The expensive model instead has the better focal plane shutter, and faster flash sync. This really is a plus.
 
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
6,505
Location
Wolfe City, Texas
I wasn't really pointing out the merits of one system over another - I am thinking that I don't make my decisions on what I purchase based on whether there is any kind of stabilization. I was quite happy shooting without it before I got the EM5 - I'm quite happy shooting with it, especially with the longer focal lengths.
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
1,299
Location
Melbourne, FL
Er, Wayne, the D70 was introduced in 2004, which was a good year, but it's time to move on. Panasonic and Sony are already make it possible to shoot at lower shutter speeds using electronic shutter mode. That are also a number of very solid things in front of the sensor besides the shutter. In fact, on all mirrorless cameras, the shutter is always fully open, even when the lens is removed. The only time it closes is when taking a picture.
 
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
22,684
Location
Idaho
I think that I am getting old enough that IS is a big factor for me. I chose the 24-120 f4 for my D600 because it has it. I get a lot more keepers. My technique just isn't that good, I guess.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Location
San Jose, CA
I find image stabilization very useful in low light and for telephoto work. I particularly like that with the 5 axis system, the stabilized image is shown in the evf and lcd.
 
Joined
May 16, 2013
Messages
17
Location
Sydney, Australia
Mongo thinks its difficult to generalise.

In body vs in lens VR. Mongo would have thought it preferable, that if each were as efficient as the other, then , it would be far more practicable to have it body rather than in lens. If you do not what to use it or no need to use - just turn it off.

Whether you should have VR or not is another question. For decades we have had non Vr lenses and got on with photography just fine. However, when you are starting to use focal lengths of 400mm and upwards commonly, given the choice to have VR or not, Mongo would choose to have it available in case he needed it. At those focal lengths, it is more likely you will need it or wish you had it some time or other. Having said that, Mongo has a couple of 300mm f4 and f2.8 without Vr and loves to use them without a worry. Same is true of all the other lenses he has which are less than that focal length. He also has a 200-400 VR which has the Vr switched OFF most of the time - but there have been times that the VR has saved Mongo's bacon.

So, no one answer to the VR question seems to fit all.
 

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom