Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:30 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:05 am 
I don't see them on the lenses I have looked at...

What is the, min shutter speed to NOT have shake at 10-24mm, at the hands of avg people?..

I remember there's a calculation with mm and times the number of something soemthing... to find the min shutter speed..Anyone know what I"m talking about?

Thanks =]


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 12:48 pm
Posts: 8022
Location: UK
There is the guideline of a shutter speed of 1/(focal_length * crop_factor) so 10mm on a typical canon would be 1/16s. BUT people can do better or worse than that guideline, and it does seem to break down for wide angles and close focusing.

The only way I'm aware of to get stabilisation on those types of lenses is to use a system which uses sensor shift. I don't know why it isn't put into ultra-wide lenses, possibly due to the reduced necessity, and possibly due to complexity.

Before anyone says it isn't needed, I can hand hold a 1 second exposure with IS on the E-P1 with 12.5mm f/1.3 lens fitted. It always give a potential advantage if present.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:51 am 
Personally???

Yes, I would love Image Stabilization on ALL my lenses.. Why? For 3 reasons.

1. I have VERY shaky hands at times.
2. Low Light
3. At times where I cant fit a tripod, and it needs to be handheld, I like that extra feeling that my images will come out sharp.


:D


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:40 am 
I need stabilisation for street & journalism...or so I've thought. At the 1st big event that happened in my city this year,I took over 200 shots at F8 & speeds from 1/160 to 1/500 with the stabilisation set to OFF by mistake from a previous product shot experiment...not even one shot was not sharp. I was amazed. I have a steady hand,so this is the most important factor.
But stabilisation can really help in all of those moments when you need to do a photo really fast & you don't have time to steady your camera that well.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:00 am 
There is a danger of relying on stabilisation over good technique. I would concentrate on the latter.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 11:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 12:48 pm
Posts: 8022
Location: UK
Forgot to mention earlier, the formula I gave is only for prevention of camera shake, it does not do anything for subject movement for example.

Razvan, those shutter speeds are not eaxctly slow... unless you were using a long tele (300mm+?) I wouldn't expect there to be much problem.

Generally, stabilisation only really comes into serious play if you want to exceed that significantly. Technique only buys you so much.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:25 pm 
I know there are not slow...but for someone without steady hands,it may be a problem


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:59 pm
Posts: 6009
Location: The Netherlands
Stabilisation at shorter focal lengths is great for landscapes (you can close your aperture 2-3 stops without risking camera shake), but for people shots it's kind of useless, unless you want the blurry effect.

_________________
I take pictures so quickly, my highschool was "Continuous High".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:04 pm 
Most landscape photographers will have a tripod so IS for landscape is kinda useless IMO.

But its always useful for... I don't know.. If your tripod is moving.

Maybe you are on a boat. :lol:


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:17 pm 
If you're in a boat,maybe the 3-way Pentax stabilisation is the best choice :D


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 4:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 12:48 pm
Posts: 8022
Location: UK
While hardcore landscape photographers might carry a tripod around with them, I'd say the average mixed interest photographer wont, and opportunities may be won or lost with IS. While it may not be necessary in a number of situations, to dismiss it all together is being extremely short sighted.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:13 pm 
I meant if you do have a tripod (and use it) IS is pretty useless.


I can agree that if you don't then IS is better than no IS.


IS is IS SIS sissy ISIS..


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:46 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:08 pm
Posts: 7923
Location: Germany
Mind you the latest Nikkor 16-35mm for FX has VR image stabilization.
And rightly so!
I'd love to have stabilization for all my lenses and as that is not going to happen I'd love to see Nikon implement body-based IS as a complementary system for those lovely non-stabilized lenses like 50mm and 85mm primes, 14-24mm, PC-E Nikkors etc. But unfortunately that is also highly unlikely :cry:
I hate schlepping a tripod with me and a monopod gives only limited stabilization and shooting nature in dark woods at not so optimal light with a little dof at base ISO immediately brings you to the 1/4-1/30 sec range. And that is very prone to shake even with a 24mm or 35mm lens.

But I also agree with those saying you should practice hand-holding and not rely solely on the wonders of your IS!
__________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D300+assorted lenses


Last edited by Thomas on Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:56 pm 
@agun


Agreed, but there are a lot of times i cannot use a tripod so VR is very useful. :D


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:22 pm 
This an example on how stabilisation can work out best in a bad lighted environment: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28103410@N ... 1/sizes/o/ & a 100% crop http://www.flickr.com/photos/28103410@N ... 4/sizes/o/ .
That was F/5.6,ISO 100 & 1/6 shutter speed,taken in a skate shop.

(I know it's not third-party-type stabilisation,but they should work the same)


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group