How much do you rely on your anti-shake?

[The View]

Do you have in-camera or lens-based anti-shake?

How much do you rely on it?

Does it really give you 3 stops more, as advertised?

I just checked my photos and found some very sharp ones, shot at 1/20th with Pentax' in-camera shake reduction. But others, at 1/45th, were not sharp.

So I really wonder if this really works that well. Or if one gets sloppy, because "there's anti-shake".

For my new camera set-up (planned: Canon 40D) I have the option to get a lens without IS (lens-based anti-shake) or, much more expensive, the 17-55/2.8 IS (which I'd rather not buy because of its inclination to suck in dust, and it's 1000$ for non-L glass). The competing lens would be the Sigma 17-70. Unfortunately, there's not much choice for the cropped sensor. No 24-105 L for APS-H sized sensor.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My experience is that AS works. It does not warranty sharp pictures but increases the probability that the picture will be sharp. Also pictures taken with AS are probably sharpen than those taken without.

For ultimate sharpness you need a decent tripod. Sharpness depends much on focal length, how camera is held and also on physical comfort.

By the way, Sigma 18-50/2.8 has a stellar reputation.

Best regards
Erik

Do you have in-camera or lens-based anti-shake?

How much do you rely on it?

Does it really give you 3 stops more, as advertised?

I just checked my photos and found some very sharp ones, shot at 1/20th with Pentax' in-camera shake reduction. But others, at 1/45th, were not sharp.

So I really wonder if this really works that well. Or if one gets sloppy, because "there's anti-shake".

For my new camera set-up (planned: Canon 40D) I have the option to get a lens without IS (lens-based anti-shake) or, much more expensive, the 17-55/2.8 IS (which I'd rather not buy because of its inclination to suck in dust, and it's 1000$ for non-L glass). The competing lens would be the Sigma 17-70. Unfortunately, there's not much choice for the cropped sensor. No 24-105 L for APS-H sized sensor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204115\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[The View]

Hi,

My experience is that AS works. It does not warranty sharp pictures but increases the probability that the picture will be sharp. Also pictures taken with AS are probably sharpen than those taken without.

For ultimate sharpness you need a decent tripod. Sharpness depends much on focal length, how camera is held and also on physical comfort.

By the way, Sigma 18-50/2.8 has a stellar reputation.

Best regards
Erik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204118\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, I heard about the Sigma. But it has no anti-shake, unfortunately.

[BruceHouston]

Do you have in-camera or lens-based anti-shake?

How much do you rely on it?

Does it really give you 3 stops more, as advertised?

I just checked my photos and found some very sharp ones, shot at 1/20th with Pentax' in-camera shake reduction. But others, at 1/45th, were not sharp.

So I really wonder if this really works that well. Or if one gets sloppy, because "there's anti-shake".

For my new camera set-up (planned: Canon 40D) I have the option to get a lens without IS (lens-based anti-shake) or, much more expensive, the 17-55/2.8 IS (which I'd rather not buy because of its inclination to suck in dust, and it's 1000$ for non-L glass). The competing lens would be the Sigma 17-70. Unfortunately, there's not much choice for the cropped sensor. No 24-105 L for APS-H sized sensor.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

View,

Your post confuses me.  The Canon 40D has an APS-C sensor, not APS-H.  Not sure what you mean by "not much choice for the cropped sensor."  All EF lenses work with the APS-C sensor.  However, EF-S lenses are specially designed for APS-C based cameras and will not work with full-frame sensor-based cameras.

Your experience with anti-shake technology correctly reflects the statistical nature of the technology.  In the case of the Canon in-lens IS system, the gyros sense your handshake and command one or more lens elements to move to counteract your handshake.  However, the movable lens element cannot move in the same direction forever.  After it hits its stop (the physical limit of its angular adjustment), or between shots, the adjustable lens element must be re-centered by the IS system.  If you take an exposure at this time, while the IS system is re-centering and is thus unavailable, you may get a blurry image depending upon shutter speed, etc.  Statistically this "down time" will be more likely to coincide with an exposure made with three stops slower shutter speed than with one stop, for example.  Thus, the more you push the IS to save you the more likely it will be that you get a fuzzy image.

None of this means that IS is not worth every penny, depending upon how much you value your photography, because it will save MANY shots.  I would never even think of buying an EF lens in a non-IS version if an IS version is available.  The only situations that I can think of to justify doing so are (1) an extremely tight budget, (2) photography where no camera shake is guaranteed (e.g., tripod-based), or (3) guaranteed light sufficient to expose properly with high shutter speeds (e.g., in a portrait studio with strobes).

I would also recommend that you buy an L lens if you can possibly afford it.

For more information on the statistical nature of the IS system, see:

[a href=\"http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_c16/page5.asp]http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_...m_c16/page5.asp[/url]

That URL is to a page from a DPR review of the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS.  Page down to the section "Optical Image Stabilization" to see a statistical bar graph showing the percentage of time that the DPR tests yielded a particular amount of sharpness at various shutter speeds.

Good luck,
Bruce

[BruceHouston]

View,

Your post confuses me.  The Canon 40D has an APS-C sensor, not APS-H.  Not sure what you mean by "not much choice for the cropped sensor."  All EF lenses work with the APS-C sensor.  However, EF-S lenses are specially designed for APS-C based cameras and will not work with full-frame sensor-based cameras.

Your experience with anti-shake technology correctly reflects the statistical nature of the technology.  In the case of the Canon in-lens IS system, the gyros sense your handshake and command one or more lens elements to move to counteract your handshake.  However, the movable lens element cannot move in the same direction forever.  After it hits its stop (the physical limit of its angular adjustment), or between shots, the adjustable lens element must be re-centered by the IS system.  If you take an exposure at this time, while the IS system is re-centering and is thus unavailable, you may get a blurry image depending upon shutter speed, etc.  Statistically this "down time" will be more likely to coincide with an exposure made with three stops slower shutter speed than with one stop, for example.  Thus, the more you push the IS to save you the more likely it will be that you get a fuzzy image.

None of this means that IS is not worth every penny, depending upon how much you value your photography, because it will save MANY shots.  I would never even think of buying an EF lens in a non-IS version if an IS version is available.  The only situations that I can think of to justify doing so are (1) an extremely tight budget, (2) photography where no camera shake is guaranteed (e.g., tripod-based), or (3) guaranteed light sufficient to expose properly with high shutter speeds (e.g., in a portrait studio with strobes).

I would also recommend that you buy an L lens if you can possibly afford it.

For more information on the statistical nature of the IS system, see:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_...m_c16/page5.asp

That URL is to a page from a DPR review of the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS.  Page down to the section "Optical Image Stabilization" to see a statistical bar graph showing the percentage of time that the DPR tests yielded a particular amount of sharpness at various shutter speeds.

Good luck,
Bruce
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204124\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

P.S. Be sure to "mouse over" the IS/Non-IS labels to see the chart change.  This point was a bit obscure in the review text as I recall.

[The View]

Thank you, Bruce, for this informative post.

Especially the part with the moving glass elements that have to recenter, was interesting.

In my case, it was a Pentax, camera-based anti-shake, so there might have been other issues at work (Like the time, it was just six o' clock on top of a mountain in the desert after a night of not too much sleep as there had been an incredibly strong storm, that almost blew me off the mountain).

I wouldn't fuss around IS so much, if I needed it for my paid work.

I don't need IS there, as my subjects - people - move.

So I'm wondering to spend money on my private needs, as  one of my passions is city photography around sunset hours.

And getting a lens that would be quite heavier and bulkier than alternative offerings.

But, sure, if I had the chance to pick between an IS and a non-IS lens, I'd always go with IS.

[Ken Bennett]

I wouldn't fuss around IS so much, if I needed it for my paid work.

I don't need IS there, as my subjects - people - move.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204129\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I shoot people for work, too, and find that IS helps in many situations. Sure, I need to keep my shutter speed up in order to freeze subject motion, but IS still helps with camera motion. And in dark classrooms, I can shoot at very long shutter speeds and capture images when the people are (mostly) still, that I would not be able to shoot without the IS. I may get the occasional motion-blur on a hand or something, but that can work for the final image.

My complaint about the Canon IS system is the total lack of fast, wide lenses with IS. My 16-35 and my 24-70 would both benefit from IS, and I'd happily pay the difference.

[Hank]

Do you have in-camera or lens-based anti-shake?

How much do you rely on it?

Does it really give you 3 stops more, as advertised?

I just checked my photos and found some very sharp ones, shot at 1/20th with Pentax' in-camera shake reduction. But others, at 1/45th, were not sharp.

So I really wonder if this really works that well. Or if one gets sloppy, because "there's anti-shake".

For my new camera set-up (planned: Canon 40D) I have the option to get a lens without IS (lens-based anti-shake) or, much more expensive, the 17-55/2.8 IS (which I'd rather not buy because of its inclination to suck in dust, and it's 1000$ for non-L glass). The competing lens would be the Sigma 17-70. Unfortunately, there's not much choice for the cropped sensor. No 24-105 L for APS-H sized sensor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204115\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

We rely on it extensively in our commercial shooting.  Not so much as an alternative to tripods, but for more latitude in camera settings and improved results when tripods aren't possible.  We still rely on tripods whenever feasible, but AS/IS/VR is certainly a bonus when handholding is required.  In fact, I miss it when using a lens without it.

But for our needs 3 stops is edging into the realm of hype.  Something like 2 stops is more realistic.  By the time I take all the precautions necessary to squeeze 3 stops out of it, I'm way too distracted from my subjects.

[The View]

I have exclusively shot with the Pentax anti-shake, and I must say I also got very used to it working well.

My longest, really sharp shot, was a hand held 1/15 sec, when applying all the techniques to keep the camera steady (except support, which wasn't available).

I really don't feel like going back to the times of non-anti-shake.