tcamper wrote:
It's the same reason they'll never put IS on a 135. It would kill their 70-200IS sales.
I honestly don't think so. The 70-200/2.8 IS is hailed for its versatility in regards to focal range, something the 135 can't offer even if it were to be implemented with an IS system. I, for one, would own both as I'm sure many others would...win win for Canon IMO.
crockett wrote:
I would guess at 1/2500 of a second you could set the timer on your camera and literally throw it into the air and spin it as violently as you possibly can and it would take an image where the motion was frozen and sharp when the timer went off.
Have you ever actually done that? I did that exact thing years ago when first getting into photography, wondering how fast is fast with respect to shutter speed when it comes to both stopping action and camera motion.
I just tried it again now out of curiosity, and 1/2500 does still lead to blurry images.
This was at 17mm, too. There's no doubt that a longer lens would show even more pronounced blur.
Ariel Bravy wrote: Have you ever actually done that? I did that exact thing years ago when first getting into photography, wondering how fast is fast with respect to shutter speed when it comes to both stopping action and camera motion.
I just tried it again now out of curiosity, and 1/2500 does still lead to blurry images.
This was at 17mm, too. There's no doubt that a longer lens would show even more pronounced blur.
meh, already deleted the pics and I don't feel like doing it again.
You can try it for yourself. Indoors I needed ISO 1600 and tossed my camera onto the bed. The only thing bright enough to be visible at 1/2500 were the lamps in my room. You could tell the lamp and the stickers on them were blurred.
Outdoors you can do it too. Have the camera land on something soft like a trampoline or whatever.
I think I remember seeing blur even at 1/8000 @ 200mm doing the same thing. It's nighttime now so I can't test it, but this I'd like to try. My 1D goes up to 1/16000, and I'd like to put that shutterspeed to the test.
Not many things move faster than 0.00016 second, or even 0.0025s. That said, I'm not crazy enough to try it myself, I don't think my insurance will understand if something happens.
Let me mention other obvious benefits of IS seldom noted explicitly: It reduces the need to carry a tripod. In turn, it reduces the time necessary to set up a shot. It reduces the need for fill flash because the camera captures the available light for exposure.
The image of the bomber aircraft indoors in the museum illustrates how the available light reaches more of the main subject at the slower shutter speed which IS makes possible. The overhead lights do cast a shadow from the aircraft on the floor, yet the light reflected from the various nearby surfaces reaches under the aircraft to illuminate this subject area. Thus the image more pleases and informs the visual perception.
Brain0: You say, “if you look at the picture of the squirrel, you'll note that the rail on which it is sitting is pretty sharp. If you look at the lines of the wood grain, there isn't any noticeable motion blur.”
This focus may result from using the setting for multiple automatic focus points instead of the center AF point. Using multiple focus points, the camera will sometimes pick a focus point in the foreground, throwing the farther elements out of focus. Hence, this automatic focus action may mimic front focus.
For this reason, when shooting a subject like a squirrel, I will set the AF to the center focus point, thereby putting the focus on the main subject.
anotherview wrote:
Let me mention other obvious benefits of IS seldom noted explicitly: It reduces the need to carry a tripod. In turn, it reduces the time necessary to set up a shot. It reduces the need for fill flash because the camera captures the available light for exposure.
One can argue that tripod slows you down and make you think more about composition. Much like a prime lens, or so they say. Given the choice, I will pick a sturdy tripod over IS any day.
anotherview wrote:
Brain0: You say, “if you look at the picture of the squirrel, you'll note that the rail on which it is sitting is pretty sharp. If you look at the lines of the wood grain, there isn't any noticeable motion blur.”
This focus may result from using the setting for multiple automatic focus points instead of the center AF point. Using multiple focus points, the camera will sometimes pick a focus point in the foreground, throwing the farther elements out of focus. Hence, this automatic focus action may mimic front focus.
Yep, that's why I prefer to use the center focus point, and then lock focus and recompose. Sometimes, if I have time, I'll manually select a different focus point using the "joystick," but usually it's faster and easier to use the center point.
I never use automatic focus point selection. How would the camera know where I want to focus?
Nope; I NEVER use it. Not ever. Wouldn't even consider it.
Except I checked, and sure enough; for some reason it was set to automatic.
The next question is why I didn't notice the flashing red focus point indicators in the viewfinder. Maybe I'm totally losing it.
n0b0: I see your point: "One can argue that a tripod slows you down and makes you think more about composition." But I cannot agree it applies to all photographers.
For my part, I think very carefully about image composition at all times, with IS or a tripod. Typically, I will study a scene with my naked eye before looking at it via the viewfinder. I study it more in the viewfinder. Only after this forethought do I press the shutter button. As a result, most of the time now my images need little or no cropping during editing. I try to follow the dictum of getting it right in the camera.
IS used correctly and with the principles of photography in mind can reduce the need for a tripod.
If anyone thinks that the majority of people can achieve critical sharpness at 1/FL, consistently, using the 20+ megapixels of the newer crop of cameras they are living in a pipe dream. Personally I believe the above is true even at the 13 megapixels of the 5D.
FWIW, I always manually select the AF point and seldom (~10%) it is in the center. This is because I generally find the composition in this case a bit boring.
Have you ever actually done that? I did that exact thing years ago when first getting into photography, wondering how fast is fast with respect to shutter speed when it comes to both stopping action and camera motion.
