200mm, 1/15 sec, handheld.
Without IS, I'd have to shoot that at a minimum of 3-4 stops faster in order to get a comparable sharpness.

I do a lot of travel photog, and in most cases I don't have the time to set up my shot - it is more point and shoot. 9/10 times i have preset the ISO and AV and just leave the shutter speed to whatever it is. My eyes are not that good and i find it hard to read the shutter speed in the view finder, mostly working from sound.

Once i take the first shot i might have time to adjust the aperture - but once again i am more concentrating on DOF than shutter speed. I know shutter speed is important and if i do have the time I will consider it - like if i am purposely setting up a shot.

All my lenses have IS, and this because these lenses came with them - i did not particularly buy them for the IS. I did have a choice when i bought the 70-200 2.8 but i bought this second hand and it was at the right price (less than an non IS new).

When i use a lens with IS i naturally leave it on. I am not conscious it is on, but if i hear the shutter speed is slow then I think to myself maybe it will be ok because i had "IS" on. It is virtually impossible for me to look at the back LCD screen and know if it was sharp or not.

This thread has been interesting for me as i started looking through a few shots i have taken over the last couple of years and noticed some of the slower shutter speeds on different cameras i have owned. Maybe i have been very lucky - but i think some of these shots would not have been keepers if it were not for "IS".

Here are a couple I have taken - and given the shutter speed, I have my doubts - i am just not that steady.

n0b0 wrote:
dwweiche wrote:
n0b0,

OK, got the first one. Owl. Third one, like a Tasmanian Devil or something. Check. But what on EARTH is the bird? It looks like a colorful dinosaur.

dw

The bird is called Cassowary. 2007 Guiness book of record Most Dangerous bird in the world.

Most dangerous or most endangered?

BTW, the owl shot is awesome. 400mm at 1/20? Impressive stuff.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Yakim Peled wrote:
Most dangerous or most endangered?

BTW, the owl shot is awesome. 400mm at 1/20? Impressive stuff.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.



Cheers Yakim. It's the Most Dangerous. It can headbutt you with that hard shell on its head or it can kick you with a stilleto-like claw. Google "cassowary feet" and have a look.

I braced myself against a pillar for that owl shot. I know for sure I didn't use a tripod because eventhough I did bring a tripod, I accidentally left the quick release plate on my MP-E lens at home.

Ouch.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

It's a tad cheesy but it's handheld at a 10th with the 24-105.

Here's another from yesterday; 1/60th @ 92mm:

helimat wrote: ...I love getting the full disc on the tail rotor.

Helicopters don't fly; they beat the air into submission.

BrianO wrote:
helimat wrote: ...I love getting the full disc on the tail rotor.

Helicopters don't fly; they beat the air into submission.

Helicopters don't fly, they are so ugly the earth repels them.

I'm still waiting for a 135L with IS.

carlsbadbum wrote:
I'm still waiting for a 135L with IS.

Add an IS version of the 24-70 to that and I'd be set... oh boy, look what I just gone and did.

M Vers wrote: ...Add an IS version of the 24-70 to that and I'd be set... oh boy, look what I just gone and did.

I've been wanting one of those for years. The 17-55 is close, but doesn't work on FF bodies; and the 24-105 is close, but is only f/4.

I bet I'll see a 24-70 IS in my lifetime, though.

(If I live long enough. )

Alas, Canon is a little slow following my predictions.

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00GvWX

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Yakim, I think your ideas are logical, but since when has Canon been logical. 5D II's have HD video, but the same AF system? Canon baited newcomers and crop-users (myself included) with a lens built like a Yugo. "IS, constant aperture, $900", Canon cried!

Viva the revolution!

No IS for you!

It's the same reason they'll never put IS on a 135. It would kill their 70-200IS sales.

........and to contribute to this thread in a positive manner............the IS on the 70-200/2.8 is freakin awsome! Must have wedding lens!

Yakim Peled wrote: Alas, Canon is a little slow following my predictions.


Well, you were half right; we do now have a 70-200 f/4 IS.

Can the 24-70 be far behind?

tcamper wrote:
Yakim, I think your ideas are logical, but since when has Canon been logical. 5D II's have HD video, but the same AF system? Canon baited newcomers and crop-users (myself included) with a lens built like a Yugo. "IS, constant aperture, $900", Canon cried!

Viva the revolution!

No IS for you!

I agree. That's exactly why I didn't buy a 5D or 5D Mk II nor am I going to.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

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, post it!

Ariel Bravy wrote:
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.

Picture or it didn't happen.

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.

Ha, if I tried tossing my camera around, my next post would be asking everyone what their Canon repair center experiences have been!

I just figured better to have someone else who'd already done it and lived to tell the tale -- I mean, lived to post the 100% crop...

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.