Re: Appropriate Use of Image Stabilization

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by James E Kropp, Jul 31, 2003.

  1. I have the 28-135 IS and I think it is a fantastic lens. I have been using
    it handheld in daylight and dusk with no problems at all.
    I use it as a longer wedding lens on my 10D and EOS-1n and, it has worked out
    great. For example, IS on, focused at 135mm, 1/15th second, 11x14 or so size
    print and pics look sharp to me and clients.
    On a tripod, the image stabilizer is off because it will actually make
    vibration because it cant find any.
    Jim Kropp
    James E Kropp, Jul 31, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. James E Kropp

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <> on 31 Jul 2003 22:04:07 GMT,
    (James E Kropp) wrote:

    > On a tripod, the image stabilizer is off because it will actually make
    >vibration because it cant find any.


    It may shift the image, but it won't make "vibration" (blurring).

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
    John Navas, Aug 1, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. James E Kropp

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >> On a tripod, the image stabilizer is off because it will actually make
    >> vibration because it cant find any.



    >From: John Navas
    >
    >It may shift the image, but it won't make "vibration" (blurring).


    Actually the early Canon versions of IS WILL indeed add blurring (substantial
    blurring) if you leave IS on while shooting from a tripod. The 75-300 IS for
    example will definitely blur.

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Aug 1, 2003
    #3
  4. James E Kropp

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <> on 01 Aug 2003 19:00:40 GMT,
    dy (Bill Hilton) wrote:

    >>> On a tripod, the image stabilizer is off because it will actually make
    >>> vibration because it cant find any.

    >
    >>From: John Navas
    >>
    >>It may shift the image, but it won't make "vibration" (blurring).

    >
    >Actually the early Canon versions of IS WILL indeed add blurring (substantial
    >blurring) if you leave IS on while shooting from a tripod. The 75-300 IS for
    >example will definitely blur.


    Perhaps you had a defective lens.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
    John Navas, Aug 1, 2003
    #4
  5. James E Kropp

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >> dy (Bill Hilton) wrote:

    >>Actually the early Canon versions of IS WILL indeed add blurring
    >>(substantial blurring) if you leave IS on while shooting from a tripod.
    >>The 75-300 IS for example will definitely blur.



    >From: John Navas
    >
    >Perhaps you had a defective lens.



    No, that's they way they were designed to work.

    Perhaps you've never actually shot one on a tripod with IS on and don't have a
    clue as to what you're talking about?

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Aug 1, 2003
    #5
  6. James E Kropp

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <j4BWa.17434$> on Fri, 1 Aug 2003 23:37:35 +0200,
    "Carsten J. Arnholm" <> wrote:

    >Canon states this in its publication "EF Lens Work III" (a book), p.
    >191.:
    >"When the first IS lenses were used with a tripod, the image stabilizer
    >malfunctioned. requiring the photographer to turn off the image
    >stabilizer function". They go on to state that this is not a problem
    >with the newer L series of lenses. ...


    In other words, that wasn't the "way they were designed to work" -- that was a
    "malfunction" on "first IS lenses."

    Perhaps I've just been lucky enough not to use of these "first IS lenses" but
    I haven't seen that malfunction.

    Apology accepted.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
    John Navas, Aug 1, 2003
    #6
  7. James E Kropp

    MarkH Guest

    John Navas <> wrote in
    news:17AWa.7524$:

    > They were designed to blur images? I hope you'll forgive me for being
    > a bit skeptical. ;-)


    They were designed to be used on tripods?

    I thought the IS was for gaining 2 stops when using handheld. My 28-135IS
    instructions say that I can gain 2 stops when shooting handheld and that I
    should turn the IS off when using a tripod.



    --
    Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
    See my pics at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~markh/
    "There are 10 types of people, those that
    understand binary and those that don't"
    MarkH, Aug 1, 2003
    #7
  8. James E Kropp

    Martin Brown Guest

    In message <A9yWa.7449$>, John Navas
    <> writes
    >[POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    >In <> on 31 Jul 2003 22:04:07 GMT,
    > (James E Kropp) wrote:
    >
    >> On a tripod, the image stabilizer is off because it will actually make
    >>vibration because it cant find any.

    >
    >It may shift the image, but it won't make "vibration" (blurring).


    The main reason to switch it off using a tripod is to save battery
    power.

    Active image stabilisers using accelerometers, gyros and servos will
    burn juice. They may hunt slightly in the absence of any vibration
    intentionally for anti-stiction or if the dead band isn't set right. I
    find the non inertial behaviour of the image somewhat disturbing through
    the viewfinder.

    Regards,
    --
    Martin Brown
    Martin Brown, Aug 1, 2003
    #8
  9. James E Kropp

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <jpCWa.17466$> on Sat, 2 Aug 2003 01:08:15 +0200,
    "Carsten J. Arnholm" <> wrote:

    >John Navas wrote in message ...


    >>Perhaps I've just been lucky enough not to use of these "first IS lenses" but
    >>I haven't seen that malfunction.

    >
    >Are you primarily interested in semantics, or how IS - early and late
    >models - actually works?


    I think that's pretty obvious, but to make it crystal clear to you, I'm
    primarily interested in how it works.

    >Of course, the counterintuitive functionality
    >of the early models may was not designed to be there - but it was,
    >nevertheless.


    No, as stated by Canon, that's a "malfunction," not designed behavior.

    >>Apology accepted.

    >
    >I'm not sure you'll be getting any.


    I didn't think so, given your attitude, but hope springs eternal.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
    John Navas, Aug 2, 2003
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jamie
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    561
    Walter Roberson
    Sep 17, 2004
  2. JJVandJMB

    Which cameras have image stabilization??

    JJVandJMB, Oct 20, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    1,010
    Jupiter
    Oct 22, 2003
  3. kjk

    Long Zooms with Image Stabilization

    kjk, Dec 27, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    332
    Hans-Georg Michna
    Dec 28, 2003
  4. Replies:
    12
    Views:
    539
    no_name
    Aug 16, 2006
  5. Al Clark

    Lens stabilization vs Camera stabilization

    Al Clark, Nov 30, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    119
    Views:
    1,773
    Dan Sullivan
    Dec 9, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page