image stabilization: how good wrt f-spot?
H.S.
Just wanted to know what is the improvement in f-stop one gets with
those image stabilization lenses? Similarly, what is the improvement in
P&S cameras?
IIRC, I read some place that the improvement is perhaps 1 f-spot. Is
this worth the extra cost?
Thanks.
--
Please remove all caps,if any, from my email address to get the correct
one. Apologies for the inconvenience but this is to reduce spam.
Marvin
> Just wanted to know what is the improvement in f-stop one gets with
> those image stabilization lenses? Similarly, what is the improvement in
> P&S cameras?
>
> IIRC, I read some place that the improvement is perhaps 1 f-spot. Is
> this worth the extra cost?
>
> Thanks.
It is worth it for me, and it one of the reasons I got a
Panasonic camera. I often visit museums, and most of them
only allow photos without a flash and without a tripod. At
the age of 87, my hands aren't as steady as they were. I
find that the image stabilizer lets me take photos that I
couldn't take in the past. It isn't as good as using a
tripod, though.
H.S.
Interesting.
I was thinking that perhaps this feature is only useful for those border
line situations where the shutter speed falls below say 1/40 sec. With
image stabilization, this beings it up to the more or less slowest speed
to take a pic without noticeable shake. However, if the speed required
were more than two spots slower than the min required for no-shake, then
it might not that useful.
H.S.
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:29:50 -0500, in rec.photo.digital "H.S."
> <hAs.sa...@gTHEmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Just wanted to know what is the improvement in f-stop one gets with
>> those image stabilization lenses? Similarly, what is the improvement in
>> P&S cameras?
>>
>> IIRC, I read some place that the improvement is perhaps 1 f-spot. Is
>> this worth the extra cost?
>
>
hmmm .. 3 to 4 stops in SLR lenses. That is nice. And it is similar for
all lens manufacturers I suppose (Canon, Pentax, etc.).
BillyGrisham
>
>Just wanted to know what is the improvement in f-stop one gets with
>those image stabilization lenses? Similarly, what is the improvement in
>P&S cameras?
>
>IIRC, I read some place that the improvement is perhaps 1 f-spot. Is
>this worth the extra cost?
>
>Thanks.
Much depends on your own skill. And knowing how IS works. If you set your IS to
"shoot-only mode" (it only engages during the actual taking of the
shutter-press, as opposed to "continuous mode" where you will see the IS working
in your viewfinder), then you can vastly improve on any of the online reports
that estimate any f/stop advantages. Those reports are done by many "pros" that
don't even know how to use a camera or hold it steady. (I know this for a fact,
just by their reports, tests, and testing-methods alone.)
When IS is in "shoot-only mode" you use your own talents to hold the camera as
steady as possible. Since you are not getting an image-stabilized preview, you
will see all the camera-shake in your viewfinder. Giving you instant feedback on
how to control your own muscles to steady the scene/camera. If you can stabilize
the image on your own, using your own skills, then any minor camera-shake that
is left over is easily removed by the IS in the camera. Using good hand-held
techniques with a good IS system allows people (like myself) to take tack-sharp
hand-held images with a 432mm (35mm eq.) length lens with a full 1 second
exposure. Vastly improving on any of f/stop advantages that the "pro reviews"
report online. If basing this on the old guideline of using a shutter-speed of
1/focal-length for a hand-held shot, then this comes out to an 8.7 to 9.0-stop
advantage when using IS in the proper manner.
(I'm more than aware that I was born into and living in a world of wholly
untalented idiots and morons. Annoying, to say the least.)
David J Taylor
> Just wanted to know what is the improvement in f-stop one gets with
> those image stabilization lenses? Similarly, what is the improvement
> in P&S cameras?
>
> IIRC, I read some place that the improvement is perhaps 1 f-spot. Is
> this worth the extra cost?
>
> Thanks.
H.S., the answer depends. Perhaps only 1-2 stops for the poorest systems.
3-4 stops for the best systems such as IS/VR lenses from Canon and Nikon.
(VR - vibration reduction - is Nikon's name for IS - image stabilisation).
Panasonic P&S has also been good in my experience - perhaps in the 3-stop
improvement range, with the IS in the lens itself. There are suggestions
that sensor-shift IS does not achieve quite such good results as in-lens
IS, and that it is slightly more limited.
It's good enough that I would not buy a camera or lens without IS/VR
today.
Cheers,
David
Brad Wentworth
<david-...@blueyonder.neither-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
>H.S. wrote:
>> Just wanted to know what is the improvement in f-stop one gets with
>> those image stabilization lenses? Similarly, what is the improvement
>> in P&S cameras?
>>
>> IIRC, I read some place that the improvement is perhaps 1 f-spot. Is
>> this worth the extra cost?
>>
>> Thanks.
>
>H.S., the answer depends. Perhaps only 1-2 stops for the poorest systems.
>3-4 stops for the best systems such as IS/VR lenses from Canon and Nikon.
>(VR - vibration reduction - is Nikon's name for IS - image stabilisation).
>Panasonic P&S has also been good in my experience - perhaps in the 3-stop
>improvement range, with the IS in the lens itself. There are suggestions
>that sensor-shift IS does not achieve quite such good results as in-lens
>IS, and that it is slightly more limited.
>
You fail to address an important issue. Optical IS systems impart their own CA
defects into all images, when the IS optical element/s is/are aligned to
compensate for shake at the widest extremes. Sensor-shift technology will not
impart more CA defects. This is one of those things that resident-trolls nor
"pro reviewers" online will ever mention, because they are just that amazingly
and fuckingly stupid and ignorant.
H.S.
Yes, I understand. Thanks for the explanation.
Warm regards.
nospam
<bradwe...@inyourface.com> wrote:
> You fail to address an important issue. Optical IS systems impart their own CA
> defects into all images, when the IS optical element/s is/are aligned to
> compensate for shake at the widest extremes.
nonsense.
> Sensor-shift technology will not
> impart more CA defects. This is one of those things that resident-trolls nor
> "pro reviewers" online will ever mention, because they are just that amazingly
> and fuckingly stupid and ignorant.
sensor based systems have the advantage of working with virtually any
lens, while in-lens systems work better at longer focal lengths (where
stabilization matters) because the sensor physically can't move as much
to compensate. a few cameras have 'electronic stabilization' or some
such, which is nothing more than raising the iso to use a faster
shutter speed (i.e., worthless).
Chris Malcolm
You also have to bear in mind that although IS extends the shutter
speeds with which you can get acceptably sharp hand held shots, few if
any IS systems are quite as sharp as can be got (with a good enough
lens) with a stable tripod with IS turned off and remote shutter or
delay used.
--
Chris Malcolm
H.S.
>
> You also have to bear in mind that although IS extends the shutter
> speeds with which you can get acceptably sharp hand held shots, few if
> any IS systems are quite as sharp as can be got (with a good enough
> lens) with a stable tripod with IS turned off and remote shutter or
> delay used.
>
Yes, that I understand. In fact, I haven't really used an IS lens yet on
a digital camera. I perfectly agree with the utility of a tripod though,
it has served me well while using film as well as digital cameras.
Moreover, doesn't IS somehow soften the image? This may not be related,
but I recall reading something about IS in video cams that the image is
kind of softened if the IS turn on.
Brad Wentworth
>In article <0groh4pspvcklit1b...@4ax.com>, Brad Wentworth
><bradwe...@inyourface.com> wrote:
>
>> You fail to address an important issue. Optical IS systems impart their own CA
>> defects into all images, when the IS optical element/s is/are aligned to
>> compensate for shake at the widest extremes.
>
>nonsense.
Only to someone that depends on the scant online marketing information without
having done their own tests.
(For those of you that depend on optical IS systems, it might enlighten you to
go back over your bevy of photos and pixel-peep to see how many of them have a
few pixels-wide green/magenta fringes on one side of your image and blue/yellow
fringe on the other side. That is "Optical-IS Chromatic-Aberration". Apparent in
many photos taken with any optical IS camera/lens. More apparent when using long
focal-lengths where it attempted to compensate for a large amount of camera
shake.)
>
>> Sensor-shift technology will not
>> impart more CA defects. This is one of those things that resident-trolls nor
>> "pro reviewers" online will ever mention, because they are just that amazingly
>> and fuckingly stupid and ignorant.
>
>sensor based systems have the advantage of working with virtually any
>lens, while in-lens systems work better at longer focal lengths (where
>stabilization matters) because the sensor physically can't move as much
>to compensate.
It will always be a trade-off. Hone your hand-held techniques and take advantage
of the non-CA-imparting sensor-shift technology that can use any lens affixed to
that camera for far less cost, or buy into a system where you pay extra for
every lens that will incorporate optical IS and also introduce extra IS-CA into
a significant percentage of their photos.
> a few cameras have 'electronic stabilization' or some
>such, which is nothing more than raising the iso to use a faster
>shutter speed (i.e., worthless).
True. ISO/shutter-speed shift shouldn't even be listed as IS. Another of the
many gimmicks that marketing departments and camera companies use to try to get
a sale.
If I see a company marketing a camera that way then I doubt everything they are
doing with all of their cameras and anything they might be saying about them.
John Navas
<bradwe...@inyourface.com> wrote in
<0groh4pspvcklit1b...@4ax.com>:
>You fail to address an important issue. Optical IS systems impart their own CA
>defects into all images, when the IS optical element/s is/are aligned to
>compensate for shake at the widest extremes. Sensor-shift technology will not
>impart more CA defects. This is one of those things that resident-trolls nor
>"pro reviewers" online will ever mention, because they are just that amazingly
>and fuckingly stupid and ignorant.
I see absolutely no evidence of that in images from my various Panasonic
cameras with Leica-branded lenses.
--
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
>sensor based systems have the advantage of working with virtually any
>lens, while in-lens systems work better at longer focal lengths (where
>stabilization matters) because the sensor physically can't move as much
>to compensate. a few cameras have 'electronic stabilization' or some
>such, which is nothing more than raising the iso to use a faster
>shutter speed (i.e., worthless).
Some "electronic stabilization" systems (e.g., Sony SteadyShot) use a
smaller portion of the sensor, moving that portion to compensate. Works
quite well, albeit at the cost of resolution.
John Navas
wrote in <b836d$491c7336$cef8808f$26...@TEKSAVVY.COM-Free>:
>Moreover, doesn't IS somehow soften the image? This may not be related,
>but I recall reading something about IS in video cams that the image is
>kind of softened if the IS turn on.
That's not the case with better in-body and in-lens optical systems.
David J Taylor
[]
> Moreover, doesn't IS somehow soften the image? This may not be
> related, but I recall reading something about IS in video cams that
> the image is kind of softened if the IS turn on.
I've not seen this in still cameras. Today's IS/VR lenses are as good as
if not better than the lenses of old, as modern computer-design techniques
allow better optimisation including allowance for the movement of the
elements. The IS also improves the video from P&S cameras.
Sensor-shift is, of course, useful if you have a bagful of existing
lenses.
If the article was referring to "electronic stabilisation" -
post-processing the sensor output - that could certainly introduce some
smoothing of the image, depending on just how the processing is done.
Such electronic-stabilisation is rare in P&S cameras, fortunately. But do
beware the cameras where words like, but not quite, "image stabilisation"
are used. As was mentioned, this may be just setting a higher than normal
ISO or shutter speed!
Cheers,
David
nospam
<bradwe...@inyourface.com> wrote:
> (For those of you that depend on optical IS systems, it might enlighten you to
> go back over your bevy of photos and pixel-peep to see how many of them have a
> few pixels-wide green/magenta fringes on one side of your image and
> blue/yellow
> fringe on the other side. That is "Optical-IS Chromatic-Aberration". Apparent
> in
> many photos taken with any optical IS camera/lens. More apparent when using
> long
> focal-lengths where it attempted to compensate for a large amount of camera
> shake.)
many lenses have chromatic aberration, and it has nothing to do with
stabilization. it's also easy to fix. and high quality lenses have
very little chromatic aberration, if any, stabilization or not.
nospam
<hAs.sa...@gTHEmail.com> wrote:
> Moreover, doesn't IS somehow soften the image? This may not be related,
> but I recall reading something about IS in video cams that the image is
> kind of softened if the IS turn on.
the softening due to vibrating lens elements or moving sensors is a
*lot* less than the results from camera shake. in other words, having
stabilization is a good thing, and only in very rare cases is it a
drawback.
however, on older systems, if the camera was on a tripod the
stabilization would still try to stabilize, making it worse. that's no
longer an issue.
H.S.
>
> however, on older systems, if the camera was on a tripod the
> stabilization would still try to stabilize, making it worse. that's no
> longer an issue.
Very interesting! Wasn't aware of this special situation.
Brad Wentworth
I describe a unique type of CA, not imparted by any other well-aligned optical
assembly. The only other time that you will find this type of CA is if a main
optical element is badly tilted in its housing (exactly how optical IS works)
due to impact or poor manufacturing. If that be the case then every one of your
photos will contain this type of CA defect. You will also find that it can
happen in only one frame from a burst sequence and in no others. The only
possible explanation is due to optical IS.
This particular type of CA is NOT easy to fix. As the color shift is different
for different sides of the image. Apparently you've also never done CA
corrections in post-processing to understand the difficulty and difference.
Unless you are nothing but a virtual-photographer resident-troll (which is what
appears to be the case so far), then trying to contradict me with things that
you obviously know nothing about are serving nobody, except yourself. Attempting
to correct your blatant misinformation and speculation based on ignorance is
tedious and boring.
Lazlo Ramone
>nospam wrote:
>
>>
>> however, on older systems, if the camera was on a tripod the
>> stabilization would still try to stabilize, making it worse. that's no
>> longer an issue.
>
>Very interesting! Wasn't aware of this special situation.
In the past (and still true in some expensive IS lenses), the mechanism, when
perfectly still, would try to "hunt" and test for vibrations and motions. On
long exposures the IS itself would slowly drift and cause blurring when the
camera was perfectly still on a tripod.
In newer cameras and lenses from the last 3-4 years this is no longer an issue.
The firmware is instructed to shut down all IS stabilization when it can't
detect a certain amount of motion for a certain period of time. Usually for no
more than 2 seconds.
If in doubt, put your camera on a steady tripod on a solid surface. Use the
longest focal-length zoom lens that you have. If your camera includes
digital-zoom, use all of that too. Focus on some finely detailed distant
subject. Then watch in the OVF or EVF to see if any minute details drift as much
as one pixel after a 2-3 second "die-down" period. If the image in your
viewfinder remains perfectly still after that, there is no need to turn off your
IS when on a tripod.
Make sure you do this on a steady surface and sturdy tripod. Don't even shift
your weight on a wooden floor. Even that much motion imparted into the tripod
can wake-up the IS routine again. When using a sturdy tripod alongside a road
with trucks passing over it, even the trucks will impart enough motion to the
ground to wake-up very sensitive IS systems.
Having tested my own IS cameras, I now feel safe leaving IS turned on at all
times. Then when out in the field, camera on tripod, and some breeze kicks up
during an exposure, I know that IS will kick-in to try to compensate. Better
that it might make an error than lose the chance of any useful image at all due
to a sturdy breeze.
The only problem here is that with so many manufacturers, makes, and models of
cameras and lenses you really don't know until you have tested it thoroughly
yourself (see above).
nospam
<bradwe...@inyourface.com> wrote:
> >> (For those of you that depend on optical IS systems, it might enlighten
> >> you to
> >> go back over your bevy of photos and pixel-peep to see how many of them
> >> have a
> >> few pixels-wide green/magenta fringes on one side of your image and
> >> blue/yellow
> >> fringe on the other side. That is "Optical-IS Chromatic-Aberration".
> >> Apparent
> >> in
> >> many photos taken with any optical IS camera/lens. More apparent when using
> >> long
> >> focal-lengths where it attempted to compensate for a large amount of camera
> >> shake.)
> >
> >many lenses have chromatic aberration, and it has nothing to do with
> >stabilization. it's also easy to fix. and high quality lenses have
> >very little chromatic aberration, if any, stabilization or not.
>
> I describe a unique type of CA, not imparted by any other well-aligned optical
> assembly.
the invisible kind.
> The only other time that you will find this type of CA is if a main
> optical element is badly tilted in its housing (exactly how optical IS works)
no, not exactly. there's a big difference between a decentered optic
and moving a couple of elements in a precise manner based on detected
motion.
> due to impact or poor manufacturing. If that be the case then every one of
> your
> photos will contain this type of CA defect. You will also find that it can
> happen in only one frame from a burst sequence and in no others. The only
> possible explanation is due to optical IS.
it's not chromatic aberration.
> This particular type of CA is NOT easy to fix. As the color shift is different
> for different sides of the image. Apparently you've also never done CA
> corrections in post-processing to understand the difficulty and difference.
actually i have, and it's quite easy with the proper tools.
> Unless you are nothing but a virtual-photographer resident-troll (which is
> what
> appears to be the case so far), then trying to contradict me with things that
> you obviously know nothing about are serving nobody, except yourself.
> Attempting
> to correct your blatant misinformation and speculation based on ignorance is
> tedious and boring.
ad hominem attacks. no actual substance.
Brad Wentworth
>> This particular type of CA is NOT easy to fix. As the color shift is different
>> for different sides of the image. Apparently you've also never done CA
>> corrections in post-processing to understand the difficulty and difference.
>
>actually i have, and it's quite easy with the proper tools.
Thanks. I was wondering if you were a virtual-photographer troll or not. This
confirms it. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt until you posted
this.
John Navas
<bradwe...@inyourface.com> wrote in
<ti2ph49a6veb4aqfn...@4ax.com>:
I was likewise willing to give you the benefit of the doubt until it
became clear you didn't have any evidence to back up your sensationalist
claims. Post some solid supporting evidence if you want to be taken
seriously.
Brad Wentworth
wrote:
>I was likewise willing to give you the benefit of the doubt until it
>became clear you didn't have any evidence to back up your sensationalist
>claims. Post some solid supporting evidence if you want to be taken
>seriously.
Anyone who has taken any images with an optical IS system and long focal-length
lenses (where it is the most obvious) can prove this to themselves. The moment
an image is posted to try to prove something, the trolls like yourself will
claim it is fake. There is no other way than for people to prove it to
themselves.
John Navas
<bradwe...@inyourface.com> wrote in
<oclph4hmu73n8oo60...@4ax.com>:
I didn't think so -- thanks for the confirmation.
Blinky the Shark
Is an f-spot something nearby a g-spot?
--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
tony cooper
<no....@box.invalid> wrote:
>
>Is an f-spot something nearby a g-spot?
You should be estopped from further questions of this type. Just get
the H out of here before you add any more.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Blinky the Shark
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 21:08:41 -0800, Blinky the Shark
> <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>Is an f-spot something nearby a g-spot?
>
> You should be estopped from further questions of this type. Just get
> the H out of here before you add any more.
I get your drift.