Re: Macro lens without image stabilization: foolish purchase?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by David J Taylor, Oct 3, 2011.

  1. "Rich" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    []
    > What was stupid was not putting the I.S. in the camera instead of the
    > lens.


    Hardly, as in-camera IS doesn't stabilise the image seen in the
    viewfinder, nor the image on the auto-focus and exposure sensors. Of
    course, it does save you money if you must re-use existing non-IS lenses
    rather than buying more recent versions. In-lens is the right place for
    image stabilisation.

    David
    David J Taylor, Oct 3, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Trevor" <> wrote in message
    news:4e897727$0$22468$...
    []
    >> Hardly, as in-camera IS doesn't stabilise the image seen in the
    >> viewfinder,

    >
    > That is over-rated AFAIC. Nice, but hardly enough to justify the extra
    > expense.


    More than nice, Trevor, it can be very helpful when framing in windy
    conditions. That's what I find, anyhow.

    []
    >> Of course, it does save you money if you must re-use existing non-IS
    >> lenses rather than buying more recent versions. In-lens is the right
    >> place for image stabilisation.

    >
    > And having both options even better!
    >
    > Trevor.


    If I had the choice between two cameras with and without body-IS, I think
    I would be reluctant to pay much extra for in-body IS, perhaps US $50.
    It's something else mechanical to go wrong. But that's with the lenses I
    already have. How much extra would it be worth to you?

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Oct 3, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. David J Taylor

    Trevor Guest

    "David J Taylor" <> wrote in message
    news:j6bi74$7i4$...
    > "Rich" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> What was stupid was not putting the I.S. in the camera instead of the
    >> lens.

    >
    > Hardly, as in-camera IS doesn't stabilise the image seen in the
    > viewfinder,


    That is over-rated AFAIC. Nice, but hardly enough to justify the extra
    expense.
    In any case as I've said elsewhere, having the option to use in camera OR in
    lens IS/VR is the best of both worlds IMO.


    > nor the image on the auto-focus and exposure sensors.


    I can't say that's ever been a real problem IME with non IS lenses.


    > Of course, it does save you money if you must re-use existing non-IS
    > lenses rather than buying more recent versions. In-lens is the right
    > place for image stabilisation.


    And having both options even better!

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Oct 3, 2011
    #3
  4. "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <j6bi74$7i4$>, David J Taylor says...
    >> Hardly, as in-camera IS doesn't stabilise the image seen in the
    >> viewfinder,

    >
    > It does, if the camera is using an EVF. OVFs will gradually disappear
    > from most cameras.
    >
    >> nor the image on the auto-focus and exposure sensors.

    >
    > That depends on the camera. If the main sensor is used for metering and
    > AF, in-camera IS will stabilise the image on the AF and exposure
    > sensors.
    >
    > The trend is that mirrorless cameras will gradually replace cameras with
    > mirrors and separate AF and metering sensors. The new Nikon 1 for
    > instance has an imager with in-built phase AF.
    > It's just a matter of time until the classic DSLR design disappears or
    > becomes restricted to very few cameras. The future is mirrorless, with
    > one main sensor for framing, metering and AF and an EVF.
    > --
    >
    > Alfred Molon


    Yes, but that's sufficiently far ahead that it would likely mean a
    complete system change, and the purchaser would evaluate the options
    available at the time. I've not seen an EVF with good enough image
    quality or low enough lag so far.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Oct 4, 2011
    #4
  5. "Trevor" <> wrote in message
    news:4e8ab49f$0$3035$...
    >
    > "David J Taylor" <> wrote in
    > message news:j6bv6e$aeb$...
    >>> That is over-rated AFAIC. Nice, but hardly enough to justify the extra
    >>> expense.

    >>
    >> More than nice, Trevor, it can be very helpful when framing in windy
    >> conditions. That's what I find, anyhow.

    >
    > I'd gladly forego it for a $500 saving or more on each lens! :)
    > (as many canon lenses are, and probably Nikon too I bet)
    >
    >
    >> If I had the choice between two cameras with and without body-IS, I
    >> think I would be reluctant to pay much extra for in-body IS, perhaps US
    >> $50. It's something else mechanical to go wrong.

    >
    > And it can't when *in the lens* at a far higher cost???
    >
    >
    >> But that's with the lenses I already have. How much extra would it be
    >> worth to you?

    >
    > Well I'd pay at least a couple of hundred or more, since it's a once off
    > cost that works with all my lenses.
    >
    > Trevor.


    No-one has yet posted a link to a comparison of in-lens and in-body IS,
    for a wide range of focal lengths, so $200 for in-body may not buy you the
    best IS/VR. We are going to have to agree to disagree on the lens cost,
    since we buy different lenses (mine are not the more expensive) from
    different manufacturers. For me, in-lens IS adds little extra cost.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Oct 4, 2011
    #5
  6. David J Taylor

    Trevor Guest

    "David J Taylor" <> wrote in message
    news:j6bv6e$aeb$...
    >> That is over-rated AFAIC. Nice, but hardly enough to justify the extra
    >> expense.

    >
    > More than nice, Trevor, it can be very helpful when framing in windy
    > conditions. That's what I find, anyhow.


    I'd gladly forego it for a $500 saving or more on each lens! :)
    (as many canon lenses are, and probably Nikon too I bet)


    > If I had the choice between two cameras with and without body-IS, I think
    > I would be reluctant to pay much extra for in-body IS, perhaps US $50.
    > It's something else mechanical to go wrong.


    And it can't when *in the lens* at a far higher cost???


    > But that's with the lenses I already have. How much extra would it be
    > worth to you?


    Well I'd pay at least a couple of hundred or more, since it's a once off
    cost that works with all my lenses.

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Oct 4, 2011
    #6
  7. "Trevor" <> wrote in message
    news:4e8acbe6$0$22471$...
    []
    >>We are going to have to agree to disagree on the lens cost, since we buy
    >>different lenses (mine are not the more expensive) from different
    >>manufacturers. For me, in-lens IS adds little extra cost.

    >
    > You don't have many lenses then. And I'm *amazed* you are so worried
    > about the IS performance and yet place so little value on the rest of
    > the lens performance!
    > Frankly I'd pick a better lens without IS than a cheap IS kit lens in
    > almost every case. And almost certainly a better quality lens with
    > in-camera IS over a cheap kit IS lens!
    > But you are welcome to your choices, it's your money and your photo's!
    >
    > Trevor.


    Excluding unwanted kit lenses, I have five lenses I use [10-24, 35/1.8,
    16-85 VR, 18-200 VR, 70-300 VR]. I made a conscious decision to reduce
    the number of lenses I carry round when I replaced film SLR with digital
    (all film lenses sold), and normally I have just the 18-200 mm VR, perhaps
    with the 10-24 mm Tamron. The weight, and the time taken to change lenses
    were the prime reasons (and 35mm equivalents for those lenses were either
    not available, too heavy, or not affordable 15-20 years back). If a
    little barrel/pincushion distortion is required, that's easy to do. Wider
    aperture lenses which (for me) are too heavy would likely be left in the
    hotel or at home, so what's the point in having them?

    As you say (almost), it's my photos, and I choose what is the best
    compromise for me. Most of my results are viewed on LCD displays of up to
    40-inch (2 MPix) in size, and I don't print bigger than A4 size (297 x 210
    mm), so I don't need the ultimate in resolution or quality. I appreciate
    that others may take photography more "seriously", and will have different
    priorities.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Oct 4, 2011
    #7
  8. David J Taylor

    Trevor Guest

    "David J Taylor" <> wrote in message
    news:j6ef2v$lru$...
    > No-one has yet posted a link to a comparison of in-lens and in-body IS,
    > for a wide range of focal lengths, so $200 for in-body may not buy you the
    > best IS/VR.


    Never said it would, I said it would work better than nothing for my lenses
    that don't have it. And I'd happily pay another $200+ to have that option.

    >We are going to have to agree to disagree on the lens cost, since we buy
    >different lenses (mine are not the more expensive) from different
    >manufacturers. For me, in-lens IS adds little extra cost.


    You don't have many lenses then. And I'm *amazed* you are so worried about
    the IS performance and yet place so little value on the rest of the lens
    performance!
    Frankly I'd pick a better lens without IS than a cheap IS kit lens in almost
    every case. And almost certainly a better quality lens with in-camera IS
    over a cheap kit IS lens!
    But you are welcome to your choices, it's your money and your photo's!

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Oct 4, 2011
    #8
  9. David J Taylor

    PeterN Guest

    On 10/4/2011 4:11 AM, David J Taylor wrote:
    >
    > "Trevor" <> wrote in message
    > news:4e8ab49f$0$3035$...
    >>
    >> "David J Taylor" <> wrote in
    >> message news:j6bv6e$aeb$...
    >>>> That is over-rated AFAIC. Nice, but hardly enough to justify the
    >>>> extra expense.
    >>>
    >>> More than nice, Trevor, it can be very helpful when framing in windy
    >>> conditions. That's what I find, anyhow.

    >>
    >> I'd gladly forego it for a $500 saving or more on each lens! :)
    >> (as many canon lenses are, and probably Nikon too I bet)
    >>
    >>
    >>> If I had the choice between two cameras with and without body-IS, I
    >>> think I would be reluctant to pay much extra for in-body IS, perhaps
    >>> US $50. It's something else mechanical to go wrong.

    >>
    >> And it can't when *in the lens* at a far higher cost???
    >>
    >>
    >>> But that's with the lenses I already have. How much extra would it be
    >>> worth to you?

    >>
    >> Well I'd pay at least a couple of hundred or more, since it's a once
    >> off cost that works with all my lenses.
    >>
    >> Trevor.

    >
    > No-one has yet posted a link to a comparison of in-lens and in-body IS,
    > for a wide range of focal lengths, so $200 for in-body may not buy you
    > the best IS/VR. We are going to have to agree to disagree on the lens
    > cost, since we buy different lenses (mine are not the more expensive)
    > from different manufacturers. For me, in-lens IS adds little extra cost.
    >


    Here's a one size fits all solution. With this external stabilizer,
    which worked very well when I tested it, you don't need either in lens,
    or in body stabilization.



    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Oct 4, 2011
    #9
  10. > Here's a one size fits all solution. With this external stabilizer,
    > which worked very well when I tested it, you don't need either in lens,
    > or in body stabilization.
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Peter


    ... although you may not be allowed to use it in some establishments!

    David
    David J Taylor, Oct 4, 2011
    #10
  11. "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <j6eemr$jhr$>, David J Taylor says...
    >> I've not seen an EVF with good enough image
    >> quality or low enough lag so far.

    >
    > The one in the Sony A77 or NEX 7 supposedly is good - 1024*768*3.
    > --
    >
    > Alfred Molon


    I suppose just under 0.8 Mpix isn't too bad, but it's still going to
    suffer lag. What are the frame rates? A pity they spoiled the NEX-7 by
    giving it too-high a resolution sensor! ANd a pity that Nikon won't be
    coming out with something similar taking their DX-format lenses.

    David
    David J Taylor, Oct 5, 2011
    #11
  12. David J Taylor

    PeterN Guest

    On 10/4/2011 8:53 AM, David J Taylor wrote:
    >> Here's a one size fits all solution. With this external stabilizer,
    >> which worked very well when I tested it, you don't need either in
    >> lens, or in body stabilization.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Peter

    >
    > .. although you may not be allowed to use it in some establishments!
    >
    > David


    Why.
    BTW did I omit the link?

    <http://www.kenyongyro.net/kenyongyro/id14.html>

    It's not a lightweight.

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Oct 5, 2011
    #12
  13. > In article <j6grdo$g7g$>, David J Taylor says...
    >> I suppose just under 0.8 Mpix isn't too bad, but it's still going to
    >> suffer lag. What are the frame rates?

    >
    > No idea, but 1024x768 is very good. That's twice the pixel count of the
    > best LCD screens in digital cameras.
    >
    > Actually even less resolution is sufficient to focus manually because
    > you usually zoom into the image down to pixel level if necessary.
    > --
    >
    > Alfred Molon


    Frame rate (or delay, to be more precise) is quite important. Agreed
    about manual focus, but some of the subjects I take are moving people, so
    auto-focus is required, together with reasonably precise timing to capture
    expressions.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Oct 6, 2011
    #13
  14. David J Taylor

    PeterN Guest

    On 10/6/2011 1:31 AM, David J Taylor wrote:
    >> In article <j6grdo$g7g$>, David J Taylor says...
    >>> I suppose just under 0.8 Mpix isn't too bad, but it's still going to
    >>> suffer lag. What are the frame rates?

    >>
    >> No idea, but 1024x768 is very good. That's twice the pixel count of the
    >> best LCD screens in digital cameras.
    >>
    >> Actually even less resolution is sufficient to focus manually because
    >> you usually zoom into the image down to pixel level if necessary.
    >> --
    >>
    >> Alfred Molon

    >
    > Frame rate (or delay, to be more precise) is quite important. Agreed
    > about manual focus, but some of the subjects I take are moving people,
    > so auto-focus is required, together with reasonably precise timing to
    > capture expressions.
    >


    Moving people aren't very fast when they are loading furniture and
    cartons at an hourly rate.


    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Oct 6, 2011
    #14
  15. > Moving people aren't very fast when they are loading furniture and
    > cartons at an hourly rate.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Peter


    ... but their expressions are equally as fleeting!

    David
    David J Taylor, Oct 7, 2011
    #15
  16. Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    > In article <j6eemr$jhr$>, David J Taylor says...
    >> I've not seen an EVF with good enough image
    >> quality or low enough lag so far.


    > The one in the Sony A77 or NEX 7 supposedly is good - 1024*768*3.


    Wake me when there's visible difference in resolution and lag
    between an EVF and an OVF. 1024x768? I've got more pixels on
    my laptop. The OLPC has more pixels than that. Never mind HDTV.

    Might as well view photos on your computer in the full glory of VGA
    (320x200), just to get an idea how far away from 'good' that is.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Oct 9, 2011
    #16
  17. David J Taylor

    John Turco Guest

    Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

    <edited for brevity>

    > Wake me when there's visible difference in resolution and lag
    > between an EVF and an OVF.


    <edited>

    You'd meant "invisible"...correct?

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
    John Turco, Oct 27, 2011
    #17
  18. John Turco <> wrote:
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:


    > <edited for brevity>


    >> Wake me when there's visible difference in resolution and lag
    >> between an EVF and an OVF.


    > <edited>


    > You'd meant "invisible"...correct?


    I need to be woken up every day. When I get old, feeble,
    feebleminded and shaky, I'll probably use an EVF since I
    wouldn't see the differences any more. :->


    Of course you were correct.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Oct 28, 2011
    #18
    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. Alan Wonsowski

    Image Stabilization - What Lens Has This for D70

    Alan Wonsowski, May 24, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    2,199
  2. Al Clark

    Lens stabilization vs Camera stabilization

    Al Clark, Nov 30, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    119
    Views:
    1,724
    Dan Sullivan
    Dec 9, 2006
  3. David J Taylor

    Re: Macro lens without image stabilization: foolish purchase?

    David J Taylor, Oct 2, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    62
    Views:
    1,007
    John Turco
    Nov 12, 2011
  4. Robert Coe
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    264
    PeterN
    Oct 4, 2011
  5. Paul Ciszek

    Image stabilization in body, camera held by lens?

    Paul Ciszek, Jun 4, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    493
    Chris Malcolm
    Jun 8, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page