Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

I did it, switched the 5D for a K-x
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital SLR Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 8:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'd like to add a remarkable shot made by a fellow Pentaxian. It's not a high-ISO shot, but the IS definitely helped. 30mm F1.4, ISO 400, 1/25s.

I know for sure the shot was made handheld because I asked specifically about that.



Last edited by Spotmatic on Fri Oct 22, 2010 8:38 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kuuan wrote:

In return stout defenders of FF here not once have acknowledged the obvious size and price advantages of e.g. the K-x.


If they are obvious, why should they need acknowledging? =)

Seriously, everyone buying a camera has their own budget and own preference for size… e.g. I personally find the smallest DSLRs too small to be comfortable while the “smaller” full frames (without integrated portrait grip) are more ergonomic and still fit in the size of bag I usually carry.

With price everyone needs to make their own decision on how they can justify spending on a given set of features. Size of the sensor is only one part of the camera.

But if it helps, I can “acknowledge” that the K-x is both cheaper and smaller than any FF camera. Whether or not this makes it a good deal for someone is an entirely different matter, and very subjective.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Arkku wrote:
… Yes, tripods do it [IS] better …


Well, it you will prove to me that a hand-held image with IS is better than a tripod image with mirror lifted, I will convert myself to your credo!
(but still not buy a IS camera just because of IS) :wink:


Umm, I just said that tripods are better in the text you quoted. Why would IS need to be better than a tripod to be useful? The point is that IS is better than no tripod and claiming that it serves no purpose is similar to claiming that a tripod serves no purpose, because it helps do the same thing—not as well, but better than nothing.

I also don't see why one would have to be of the opinion that IS is important enough to buy a camera “just because of IS”. I certainly wouldn't, e.g. I consider full frame far more important than IS, but I definitely prefer my full frame camera with IS to another without it.

All I'm saying: IS is genuinely and demonstrably useful for handheld shots, and as such not just a marketing gimmick.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
spot wrote:
I'd like to add a remarkable shot made by a fellow Pentaxian. It's not a high-ISO shot, but the IS definitely helped. ISO 400, 1/25s

what is remarkable in this shot ?
1/25s with a 30mm is not difficult even without IS


He said that IS helped, not that IS allowed one to take an otherwise impossible shot. And I would say that the typical (not lucky) handheld shot in these conditions is probably improved slightly by IS even if the non-IS version would be usable.

My personal example:



This is 50mm on crop sensor handheld at 1/8s with IS (f/2, ISO 400). It's not perfect—a tripod would have helped more, but I didn't carry one along because I didn't expect to be taking any night shots.

With enough tries I probably could have done it without IS, but I was happy to have it. It helps, i.e. it's useful.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It seems that I have difficulty having my point made clear. I try again:

1) if I am out to photograph in the night, or with long teles, then I have a tripod and a remote command with me, because this is how photography works for me, I aim for the best that I can possibly obtain. So in this case I don't need IS because it would not give me a better result;

2) if I am taking snapshots (such as at live events), I photograph living beings that don't keep a pose for me. Therefore I need to use a shutter time that by itself makes the use of IS redundant, because a speed that freezes life movement is also a speed that freezes my possible hand shake;

3) If I am shooting posed photos of people, and I dont' have a tripod with me, then I use other supports. Unless I am in the Sahara desert (which seems unlikely), I always find some support to keep the camera steady for a group portrait or for Uncle Raffaella cutting her birthday cake. Maybe IS would make it useless to use a support, but in no way it would be indispensable for me to take the photo: I will use Uncle Raffella's chair or table, put my wallet under the lens if I need to tilt, and voilà! Hand-made IS with a non-IS camera. Result: I still don't need IS. It might be comfortable, but not indispensable, and completely replaceable.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
It seems that I have difficulty having my point made clear.


You've made it perfectly clear in your past posts, and this one, that you personally don't see any need for IS in your use. You are certainly welcome to have that opinion, and I didn't think I'd misunderstood it in any way. (Although I personally suspect that it may be too hastily formed if you have not tried IS—many people have found it unexpectedly useful despite initial doubts. But of course it doesn't matter to me whether you use it or not.)

Likewise in my first post about IS in this thread (which was in no way aimed at you), I was stating my own opinion. This opinion is based on my experience of having used cameras with IS for years, alongside cameras without IS, and it is that IS is very useful in my use in almost all situations where I do not carry a tripod.

So I don't really see what point it is that is not getting across? I'm writing about my experiences with IS in hopes that those who are not sure what it would be good for can get a better idea of it. I'm not expecting you to go out and buy a camera with IS, and I hope you are not expecting everyone with IS to start carrying a tripod instead of taking advantage of their camera's stabilisation… or to stop saying that they do. =)

Orio wrote:

Unless I am in the Sahara desert (which seems unlikely), I always find some support to keep the camera steady for a group portrait or for Uncle Raffaella cutting her birthday cake. Maybe IS would make it useless to use a support, but in no way it would be indispensable for me to take the photo:


I find IS really helps with makeshift supports like steadying against a chair, or leaning one's arms on a table, or leaning against wall, etc. It's definitely not indispensable, but it helps. Just like I'm sure you have noticed that a tripod helps improve even shots with fast shutter speeds that are normally considered easily hand-holdable, I have noticed that IS, too, helps improve quality and success rate even where not really necessary to get a useful shot.

(To be perfectly clear: a tripod helps more. But like I said before, IS does not need to be better than a tripod to be better than nothing. =)

Orio wrote:
It might be comfortable, but not indispensable, and completely replaceable.


Fully agreed that it's not indispensable. As for completely replaceable, that's very subjective and depends on the type of photography, focal length ranges used, willingness to carry a tripod (e.g. here in Finland one would basically have to carry one all winter to completely replace IS), etc.

Last edited by Arkku on Sat Oct 23, 2010 11:39 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 1:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nikon bodies don't have in-camera image stabilisation but many of their lenses include Vibration Reduction - VR. I have two consumer zooms which include VR. In order to get sharp images it is necessary to stop down to f/11 - say. If I want to use a low ISO then in average light this can mean a relatively low shutter speed. In many of the places I shoot it is simply not practical to set up a tripod. In other areas it is not permitted by the owners of the property. I have found VR to have been of enormous help in such situations.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 1:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
As a Pentax shooter (K200D), I find the built in IS to be an excellent feature. It is the tripod that is always with me and it weighs nothing. Plus it works for any manual lens I can mount on the camera.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio we really must be very different types of photographers.

When I am out at night to meet people, to go to a party, I never carry a tripod! ( of course I'd want one if I'd try to take a landscape / cityscape shot at night )

When I am taking 'snapshots', as you call them, I rather would call it 'street' photography, I do not use a tripod neither. Still I do not need people to 'pose' at all. If I want better IQ through lower ISO and thus go for IS + long exposure time I will be careful to choose the right moment when my main subject rather holds still. Others having motion blur may just be fine!

Often I take photos of still objects, a coffee cup, a flower, whatever it is, many a times indoors with limited light. How great that IS allows me choose smaller aperture, if so desired, or more typically a that much lower ISO.

Samples where IS made a photo possible? There are many..I still remember this one, it was not that much time ago, I had shown it before. It was very dark, people sitting close together on a lawn in front of a stage. People sitting that close together until touching each other there was no table, tree, anything i could have used as support. Not even considering disturbing using a tripod. Anyway any long fiddling would have lost the moment and smile. It was dark, focusing had to be fast and @ f1.4 I did not nail it. But still, a photo I like at ISO 2500, f1.4 and 1/15 sec



PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 2:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I like the in camera IS too

this is 1/50th of a second with a 85mm lens



PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 2:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
PS: Arkku that night shot is cool!


PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 9:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kuuan wrote:
Orio we really must be very different types of photographers.
...


Agree, there are as many types of photogrephers as photographers themselves Wink

I own some cameras that have IS.
Initially I use to switch it off at the beginning, just waiting for the need to switch it on.
And guess what?.
I've never switched it on again in any of them...

So to me IS is really useless Smile

We're free of using or not any part of our equipment. What only matters is the result.

Regards.
Jes.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital SLR Cameras
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Page 7 of 7