jvarszegi wrote:
... which will be an added benefit to many macro shooters and others who like that feature.
While it might be nice, I think it'll be mostly redundant as most if not all handheld macro shooting require flash. Besides, I don't think IS can help anyway, too much loss of light, specially when you start going above 1:1.
n0b0 wrote:
While it might be nice, I think it'll be mostly redundant as most if not all handheld macro shooting require flash. Besides, I don't think IS can help anyway, too much loss of light, specially when you start going above 1:1.
I don't understand. I said it would help stabilize the view in LiveView, which it would. How would IS lose light? How would it be redundant because of the use of flash?
The argument I usually see against IS for macro, BTW, is that it would have to also stabilize forward-reverse motion for maximum usefulness. Even so, I've seen some nice handheld macros at slow shutter speeds from the Nikon macro.
jvarszegi wrote:
I don't understand. I said it would help stabilize the view in LiveView, which it would. How would IS lose light? How would it be redundant because of the use of flash?
The argument I usually see against IS for macro, BTW, is that it would have to also stabilize forward-reverse motion for maximum usefulness. Even so, I've seen some nice handheld macros at slow shutter speeds from the Nikon macro.
No, I meant there's too much loss of light in macro shooting for the IS to be useful, even if it can compensate for 4 stops. The keeper rate is still going to be very low for it to be useful.
How is it going to help "forward reverse motion"? One problem with macro is the severe lack of DOF, you go forward or backward too much and it'll be out of focus. How's the IS going to compensate for that?
No mate, handheld macro is about high shutter speed. I'd love to see these slow shutter speed handheld Nikon macro shots you're talking about. Even if there really are, I'd say they're more of a fluke, an exception to the rule rather than the norm.
n0b0 wrote:
No, I meant there's too much loss of light in macro shooting for the IS to be useful, even if it can compensate for 4 stops. The keeper rate is still going to be very low for it to be useful.
Logic not found. You're going to have to explain it better to me. Are you trying to say that if you have to use a flash anyway, no matter how harsh the light may be, softening it is absolutely useless? Are you trying to say that extra stops provided by IS could never nudge a shot from a flashed to a natural-light shot?
n0b0 wrote:
How is it going to help "forward reverse motion"? One problem with macro is the severe lack of DOF, you go forward or backward too much and it'll be out of focus. How's the IS going to compensate for that?
That's what I said is the obvious and really only argument against its usefulness for macro. You missed it but seem to have picked up on it now.
jvarszegi wrote:
Two minor disagreements. First, the steady viewfinder is only important at longer focal lengths; sports and wildlife shooters will of course continue to prefer and use the already-excellent IS in the super telephotos. Second, in-body IS does at least stabilize the view in LiveView, which will be an added benefit to many macro shooters and others who like that feature.
Don't macro shooters use tripods? If not tripods, they would at least have to use high shutters speeds for non-static objects. Even if in-body IS would allow a macro shooter to shoot at 1/10th of a second, it would be useless with any object that moves.
Looking at the lens lineup in your profile, I don't think you're seeing a huge benefit from a stabilized view from your 70-200L. I know this because I use a non-stabilized version and it works just fine handheld at 200mm, no issues tracking at all, and I have only average-steady hands.
I thoroughly enjoy the reduced movement in the viewfinder that IS provides, especially with this lens. I may not need it for every shot, but when I do, I'm glad it's there.
In addition, I peg you as a people shooter because of the lenses in your profile. You really wouldn't want a stabilized 24-70L, or 50 f/1.4? Really? My experience shooting with cropped cameras is that even at 50mm 1/80s handheld, I get some shots ruined due to camera shake during the heat and excitement of an event, and I am probably better than many people at holding still (you may of course be much better).
I actually would love a 24-70L with IS, but not with the added cost and weight that comes with in-lens IS. As for in-body? I guess so, but again, I don't shoot static objects. Lowering shutter speeds is going to induce motion blur. As for the 50 f/1.4? I got it because of its speed, so any IS (whether in-body or in-lens) is a secondary thought. I want fast glass for moving objects, not IS for static objects.
How about a stabilized 17-40L-- wouldn't that increase your ability to handhold that lens in varying conditions? If you shoot landscapes, the answer will be "no" because you are probably using a tripod. If you shoot city handheld, the answer should be "yes".
I do shoot landscapes I'm not going to be entirely irrational--IS would be nice, but I would rather decide whether I want to pay for it. Had I wanted IS and fast glass from 17-24 (as I already have the 24-70L), I would have bought the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.
Another issue I think you may have overlooked is the relative inexpensive cost of IS technology. Canon and Nikon are incorporating it into a lot of lenses. If they go in-camera, I would be that most IS-lens sales would plummet. Canon would have to make that cost up somewhere--either in the price of the camera or raising the price of new non-IS lenses.
In my opinion it's best to have the is/vr in the lens. This way you see the result in the viewfinder, with vr/is on the sensor you can't really see the exact result, only when you look at the shot afterwards.
Advantage of sensor is/vr is that it will work with all lenses even wide angle.
hmmm...how come sony's lens without IS/VR is more expensive than Nikon and Canon's? Same aperture, same focal length, but without VR/IS.
A more appropriate comparison would be the Canon 70-200 F2.8 without IS. It sells for about $600 less than the equivalent Sony model.
Every item that carries the Sony name is priced higher than it's competition. Sometimes the Sony product is better. More often it is the same, or just different but not better.
WmPat wrote:
A more appropriate comparison would be the Canon 70-200 F2.8 without IS. It sells for about $600 less than the equivalent Sony model.
Every item that carries the Sony name is priced higher than it's competition. Sometimes the Sony product is better. More often it is the same, or just different but not better.
For TV's; Thank goodness for Samsung and LG, it made Sony bring their prices down.
jvarszegi wrote:
Logic not found. You're going to have to explain it better to me. Are you trying to say that if you have to use a flash anyway, no matter how harsh the light may be, softening it is absolutely useless? Are you trying to say that extra stops provided by IS could never nudge a shot from a flashed to a natural-light shot?
That's what I said is the obvious and really only argument against its usefulness for macro. You missed it but seem to have picked up on it now.
Well you obviously don't shoot macro or you would've understood what I meant. Why don't you google "effective f-stop".
The light is only harsh when you don't know what you're doing. Some of the pros in macro forum can make their flash shot look like it's shot in natural light. Why don't you pop by the macro forum and check out how we diffuse lights eh? You might learn a thing or two.
Yes, I'm saying the extra stops provided by IS wouldn't be enough. Why do you think that none of Canon's macro lenses have any IS?
IS is never designed to compensate for forward/backward motion so I'm not sure why you even mention that here.
Esquire08 wrote:
Don't macro shooters use tripods? If not tripods, they would at least have to use high shutters speeds for non-static objects. Even if in-body IS would allow a macro shooter to shoot at 1/10th of a second, it would be useless with any object that moves.
You got that right, except shooting handheld is more common than people think.
n0b0 wrote:
Well you obviously don't shoot macro or you would've understood what I meant. Why don't you google "effective f-stop".
Effective f-stops have nothing to do with your basic fallacy. You are saying that because one has to use a flash, one can never make use of extra light. It just doesn't compute, no matter how snotty you get. I suspect you know this.
Explain how, if you're shooting outdoors in good light but need a few stops of light from a flash, if you could get those stops back from anti-shake you wouldn't be better off. Oh wait, you can't...
You make it sound like no one ever shoots natural-light macros.
An IS system could compensate for forward-back motion. In fact it would probably be easier to do this with a sensor-based system. I bring it up here because it's the only thing making the benefit of IS for shooting some macros really questionable. You really don't seem to have thought things through.
jvarszegi wrote:
Effective f-stops have nothing to do with your basic fallacy. You are saying that because one has to use a flash, one can never make use of extra light. It just doesn't compute, no matter how snotty you get. I suspect you know this.
Explain how, if you're shooting outdoors in good light but need a few stops of light from a flash, if you could get those stops back from anti-shake you wouldn't be better off. Oh wait, you can't...
You make it sound like no one ever shoots natural-light macros.
An IS system could compensate for forward-back motion. In fact it would probably be easier to do this with a sensor-based system. I bring it up here because it's the only thing making the benefit of IS for shooting some macros really questionable. You really don't seem to have thought things through....Show more →
Look here mate, do you or do you not shoot macros? if you don't shoot macros then I wasn't not being snotty.
Even when you're using the flash as fill light, you'd still need high shutter speed. Dalantech from macro forum used 180L macro and use flash only as fill light and he still used high shutter speed 1/640s. Feel free to search for "dragon" in macro forum.
Effective f-stops just shows the lack of light macro shooters have to deal with.
I never said noone shoot natural light macro, I just said the keeper rate is low. In daylight with ISO200, I only managed to get 1/10s without flash. Other shots of this subject shows motion blur so they're pretty useless. On windy day or with an active subject, there's just no way you can use low shutter speed. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3234/2663546854_dfd2765dca.jpg
So you claim an IS can compensate for forward/backward motion eh? How about some sort of proof to back that up? coz I thought forward/backward motion is compensated by the AF.
Last of all, if you read my very first post here, I said "while it might be nice, I think it'll be MOSTLY redundant...".
Canon please make 1 body with in body IS.
I know it probably wont work very well and the lens IS will be better.
But at least it will make this thread go away
and to anyone who wants body IS so much I hear Olympus,sony,pentax,samsung already have what you want
Regardless of what we think, in the end, for marketing reasons and to be competitive, in-body handshake compensation in DSLR class will be standard across all makes and models.
Currently only Canon and Nikon do not offered this technology (even though they have it) and it's a matter of who will break down first; Then the flood gate of this technology will appear accross the board of different models. Only how it is implemented to co-exist with the lens IS/VR will be the evolving factor.
it looks like Nikon and Canon are not going to implement body IS in their camera soon
since they just upgrade their kit lens with IS/VR function recently.
For newbies, no matter which brand they choose, they would get IS/VR anyway.
For pros, they can only choose Canon and Nikon since other manufacturers dont have so many lens support like Canon and Nikon do.
Therefore, body IS/VR is not a big concern to Canon and Nikon now, so I dont see any reasons that Canon and Nikon have to upgrade their camera with IS/VR. Of course, it will be nice to have body IS/VR.
I dont think body IS/VR is the future of still photography, high ISO performance is more important here.
However, I think Canon and Nikon might implement body IS/VR in their camera, but it's for video recording only.
Hanh wrote:
Regardless of what we think, in the end, for marketing reasons and to be competitive, in-body handshake compensation in DSLR class will be standard across all makes and models.
Currently only Canon and Nikon do not offered this technology (even though they have it) and it's a matter of who will break down first; Then the flood gate of this technology will appear accross the board of different models. Only how it is implemented to co-exist with the lens IS/VR will be the evolving factor.
somehow i kind of doubt that. just because someone else is doing it another way forces your hand to follow. in the world of digital both canon and nikon are the leaders not olympus, not sony, not panasonic. these companies need to differentiate themselves so they use yet another technology to get noticed. its a tool of marketing to make it look like they are doing something different and technologically advanced to an otherwise dazed and confused buying public. it down to who are you going to believe
marketing? they can push their proven and well working technology
competetive? these are companies that come out with $8000 camera bodies and lenses the run the full gammut of price structure.
i had the first camera with the in camera anti shake system. it was the Minolta A1. it was a help but was limited in scope of operation
n0b0 wrote:
Look here mate, do you or do you not shoot macros? if you don't shoot macros then I wasn't not being snotty.
Even when you're using the flash as fill light, you'd still need high shutter speed. Dalantech from macro forum used 180L macro and use flash only as fill light and he still used high shutter speed 1/640s. Feel free to search for "dragon" in macro forum.
Effective f-stops just shows the lack of light macro shooters have to deal with.
I never said noone shoot natural light macro, I just said the keeper rate is low. In daylight with ISO200, I only managed to get 1/10s without flash. Other shots of this subject shows motion blur so they're pretty useless. On windy day or with an active subject, there's just no way you can use low shutter speed. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3234/2663546854_dfd2765dca.jpg
So you claim an IS can compensate for forward/backward motion eh? How about some sort of proof to back that up? coz I thought forward/backward motion is compensated by the AF.
Last of all, if you read my very first post here, I said "while it might be nice, I think it'll be MOSTLY redundant..."....Show more →
One doesn't have to shoot at 1/10s for IS to be useful. One merely has to shoot off a tripod at a slower speed than would otherwise be possible.
The fact that Dalantech has taken a macro shot at 1/640s does not mean a slower speed is not possible. Your own 1/10s shot proves this.
Thank you for admitting that IS can be useful for macro. There was just no getting around your basic fallacy, as you found. And as I expected, you only now, after I brought it up, think to mention the incapability of current IS systems to compensate for certain forms of motion.
You really haven't thought things through. But of course, you're never wrong. I agree that you weren't not being snotty.
I'm fascinated by the posters who are against in body IS. If Canon added average performing 1-1.5 fstop in-body IS that switches off when an IS lens is used for could be just turned off, what would be the downside of that? Personally, I would love to have a bit of IS with my 50mm prime.
Is there anyone out there who would be against what I just proposed, and if so why? The only thing I can think of is if you have spent a lot of money on IS lenses and are pissed off that all of a sudden everyone is getting IS.
Lance Lee wrote:
I'm fascinated by the posters who are against in body IS. If Canon added and average performing 1-1.5 fstop in-body IS that switches off when an IS lens is used for could be just turned off, what would be the downside of that? Personally, I would love to have a bit of IS with my 50mm prime.
Is there anyone out there who would be against what I just proposed, and if so why? The only thing I can think of is if you have spent a lot of money on IS lenses and are pissed off that all of a sudden everyone is getting IS....Show more →
That seems to be the gist of it for most of the naysayers.
How would it be redundant because of the use of flash? 
You're going to have to explain it better to me. Are you trying to say that if you have to use a flash anyway, no matter how harsh the light may be, softening it is absolutely useless? 
