[Mayavi]

Originally Posted by Samurai

There are 3 important things that can improve your images drastically:

1) Learning how to expose your images.
2) Learning how to compose your images.
3) Learning how to do basic post-processing using any PP tool, even free ones like Picasa.

PS: Note I don't mention anything about equipment.

If I understand IS correctly, it stabilizes the image from the jitters caused by camera shake at slower shutter speeds. When we are talking about slow shutter speeds, we assume it is hand held. Since hands are involved here, slow shutter speed varies from person to person, correct? My hands shake quite a bit and I do not know how better composition, exposure and PP are gonna salvage the blurry pics.
I borrowed a friends camera (S3 with IS) and the images were not blurred as much for the same shutter speeds in SLR.

[Mayavi]

This is what I am hoping to achieve with IS

[kumar2007]

Originally Posted by Samurai

I am not knocking IS, it is a very useful feature. In fact my next dSLR body will have sensor based IS. My comments were directed towards the statement "I am trying to raise money for a 28-135 with IS. I badly need IS to get any decent pictures".

Sensor based IS is not good. Better to get lens IS. Sensor based IS sound great but does not work as well as lens based IS PLUS you dont get the IS in the VF - which is an amazing advantage when you are trying to frame a bird in flight etc.

[vivekiny2k]

Originally Posted by kumar2007

Sensor based IS is not good. Better to get lens IS. Sensor based IS sound great but does not work as well as lens based IS PLUS you dont get the IS in the VF - which is an amazing advantage when you are trying to frame a bird in flight etc.

i am not much into Is technology, but logically speaking, isn't is easier to stabilize the image by manipulating the sensor position than the lense position?

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by kumar2007

Sensor based IS is not good. Better to get lens IS. Sensor based IS sound great but does not work as well as lens based IS PLUS you dont get the IS in the VF - which is an amazing advantage when you are trying to frame a bird in flight etc.

Why??
Tests by independent testers have shown 2-3 stop improvement in FLs of around 150mm.
I agree that in case of 600mm etc., you would have atmost a 2 stop advantage, but for most ordinary focal lenghts you get same as in lens.

Sensor shift not good is FUD spread by canon and nikon(I own a canon).
In none of their "so called observations" do they put forward any comparison.

However if you see tests from reputed sites, in wide angle lenses even 4 stop advantage is reported

[Rehaan]

This is not a substitute for IS, but IF you got that one perfectly framed picture, but the damn thing has a bit of shake, heres something you can try >



Sharpening hand-held shots | creativebits

cya
R

[tifosikrishna]

Originally Posted by kumar2007

Sensor based IS is not good. Better to get lens IS. Sensor based IS sound great but does not work as well as lens based IS PLUS you dont get the IS in the VF - which is an amazing advantage when you are trying to frame a bird in flight etc.

samurai, i agree with kumar here, camera based IS is considered to be less efficient that lens IS, that's why many of popular brands have not included it as a feature yet in the DSLR (another reason could be that they do not want to lose out on their IS lens sales). in fact, i remember phil askey (dpreview) quoting that they really do not consider sensor based IS in the same league as lens based counterparts.

Most of us here (Rudra included) have no IS on any of our lenses. What makes you think IS is going suddenly improve your images?

Are you sure. To my knowledge he has 70-200f2.8IS lens.

[Mayavi]

Originally Posted by Rehaan

This is not a substitute for IS, but IF you got that one perfectly framed picture, but the damn thing has a bit of shake, heres something you can try >

Sharpening hand-held shots | creativebits

cya
R

Thats a useful tip, I will see if the PS version I have has this feature.

I don't understand why samurai keeps repeating that its all skills and equipment has nothing to do with good pictures, while he himself uses a SLR and zoom lenses. Wonder why he spends so much money on extension tubes and lenses when he can buy a digital camera for 50 bucks and take National Geographic quality images.

[deepakvrao]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Why??
Tests by independent testers have shown 2-3 stop improvement in FLs of around 150mm.
I agree that in case of 600mm etc., you would have atmost a 2 stop advantage, but for most ordinary focal lenghts you get same as in lens.

Sensor shift not good is FUD spread by canon and nikon(I own a canon).
In none of their "so called observations" do they put forward any comparison.

However if you see tests from reputed sites, in wide angle lenses even 4 stop advantage is reported

Lens based IS is better for following reasons:

1. The new lens IS gives 4 stop stabilization even at longer FLs
2. Lens IS gives visible stabilization in the VF which is remarkable. It helps in framing, knowing how good your image will finally be as well as helps stabilize your own hands with the confidence that it gives
3. With lens IS you pay for IS once while with body IS you pay with every body upgrade - and eventually bodies are upgraded more than lenses [once you have a good collection of lenses
4. Lens IS is tailored for that particular lens while body IS is a one for all answer
5. You can get IS with film too - its still used you know

The only disadvantage IMO with lens IS is that it adds more optical elements that MIGHT have an impact on image quality-the 70-200 2.8 non IS is reputedly sharper than the IS version BUT in newer lenses even that is taken care of. I have a 70-200 f4 IS which is definitely sharper than the non IS version.

Well, another disadvantage is that lens based IS is more expensive to acquire initially but IMO its well worth the money.

However OTOH in body IS will improve with time - its still in its infancy - and the new Oly is reputedly/alleged to have a 5 stop advantage. Now that sounds a great and cheapish solution but what Oly charges for their lenses negates any cost advantage. Oly lenses WITHOUT IS are more expensive than IS Canon lenses.

I would use in body IS only if it was introduced by Canon so that I dont have to dump all my gear that I currently have.

We could ideally have both systems so then body IS can be used with non IS lenses and when you use IS lenses you have a choice of the two.

Currently I would simply not go for in body IS as the manufacturers who offer that have limited lens lineups so its difficult/expensive to acquire as well as difficult to sell when you want to change.

[deepakvrao]

Originally Posted by Mayavi

Thats a useful tip, I will see if the PS version I have has this feature.

I don't understand why samurai keeps repeating that its all skills and equipment has nothing to do with good pictures, while he himself uses a SLR and zoom lenses. Wonder why he spends so much money on extension tubes and lenses when he can buy a digital camera for 50 bucks and take National Geographic quality images.

I think in a way what Samurai is saying and I do agree with him is that good/great photographs can be taken with very average equipment.

OTOH what I feel is that an average photographer like me will greatly benefit from better equipment while the great photographer will do better than me with ordinary equipment. That said there are some photographs that CANT be done without specialized equipment. You cant do birding without a long tele, you cant do true macro without a macro lens, tubes etc. You cant do sport photography easily without a high frame rate, big buffer etc. All depends on what you want to do, budget, passion etc. Just like modding your car

I have always felt that this applies to everything. The average joe golfer will benefit from fancy clubs while Tiger Woods would outdrive/outplay him with junk clubs too. BUT give TWs the better clubs and he'll perform magic.

[Hellcat]

A short video demonstrating the different stabilizing options of the E-510 when mounted with the Leica D 14-50mm lens. Showing you each stabilizing system separately, then together. Double stabilization, or double trouble? You'll see right here!



Olympus E-510 with Leica D 14-50mm - Double stabilisation or double trouble

[Mayavi]

Originally Posted by deepakvrao

I think in a way what Samurai is saying and I do agree with him is that good/great photographs can be taken with very average equipment.

Ofcourse, no one denies that. You can always take great photographs with el-cheapo cameras if you have the skills. But skills can only do so much when your equipment has limitations some of which you mentioned in the later part of your post.
So my question is, if you are trying to be a photographer, how long do you persist with an el-cheapo and place artificial limitations on your skills?

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by tifosikrishna

samurai, i agree with kumar here, camera based IS is considered to be less efficient that lens IS, that's why many of popular brands have not included it as a feature yet in the DSLR

I am not so sure that is true. They (popular brands) said the same thing when Olympus brought out anti-dust system or Live View system to dSLRs. Now they are adding the same features to their top end cameras and trying to pose as pioneers.

Originally Posted by tifosikrishna

Are you sure. To my knowledge he has 70-200f2.8IS lens.

Ah! missed that one.

Originally Posted by Mayavi

I don't understand why samurai keeps repeating that its all skills and equipment has nothing to do with good pictures, while he himself uses a SLR and zoom lenses. Wonder why he spends so much money on extension tubes and lenses when he can buy a digital camera for 50 bucks and take National Geographic quality images.

Ok, I didn't expect my comment would cause such a major storm. If Mayavi had said he wants IS lens to improve his lowlight shots or telephoto shots, then you wouldn't have heard a word from me other than in agreement. IS only improves the technical merit (say sharpness) of your image, it won't improve composition nor exposure. For me decent photo means something with better composition and creative/good exposure.

Why do we strive for better equipment? In my case, I switched to dSLR for following reasons. I wanted to shoot telephoto, macros, or even wide angle shots using superior lenses best suited for those specialized needs. Basically to improve the technical merits of my shots. So dSLR was the only way to go. But exposure and composition of my shots are still at my mercy. In fact I will be upgrading my dSLR body soon to acquire few more technical features like live view, IS and better lowlight performance with less noise.

Originally Posted by deepakvrao

However OTOH in body IS will improve with time - its still in its infancy - and the new Oly is reputedly/alleged to have a 5 stop advantage. Now that sounds a great and cheapish solution but what Oly charges for their lenses negates any cost advantage. Oly lenses WITHOUT IS are more expensive than IS Canon lenses.

One of the main reasons why I chose Olympus was high quality lenses at reasonable prices. Olympus makes their legendary Zuiko lenses in 3 quality series.

The first series is called Standard, their el cheapo lens series given out as kit lenses, but they are still better than kit lenses from other popular brands.

The second series is called High Grade, these are weather proofed lenses similar to L series from Canon, but only cheaper than comparable L lens.

The third series is called Super High Grade, with mind boggling price tags. I have heard that they are amazing lenses, only top professional would buy them I suppose. I don't know what's the Canon/Nikon equivalent of these lenses. I think you are referring to the cost of these lens.

Four-Thirds lenses - Camerapedia.org

I have a Zuiko 50-200mm F/2.8-3.5 High Grade with a EFL of 100-400mm, bought at US$788. The closest Canon lens would be 70-200mm F/2.8L (EFL 112-320mm) at US$1,140. BTW, don't bother comparing with the cheaper 70-200mm F/4L, the 50-200mm is known to be much better than that. Plus it will get IS once I upgrade the body, actually all my lenses would.

The choice of lenses is obviously limited, but there is a lens for every FL from 7mm to 300mm. But it gets pretty expensive as you get closer to ultra-wide or ultra tele-photo. The Olympus lens are VFM from medium-wide to medium-tele. But that might be changing soon.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by Mayavi

Ofcourse, no one denies that. You can always take great photographs with el-cheapo cameras if you have the skills. But skills can only do so much when your equipment has limitations some of which you mentioned in the later part of your post.
So my question is, if you are trying to be a photographer, how long do you persist with an el-cheapo and place artificial limitations on your skills?

Mayavi, I think you are misunderstanding the whole point.
A good camera is a tool and will allow you to take better pictures with lesser difficulty.
But its secondry.
"Other things" are more important than the equipment.
2 years ago I bought a DSLR with a couple of lenses.
Along the way I have added just a 75$ lens, nothing else.
but I believe the quality of my pictures has grown by leaps and bounds.

One of the most critically acclaimed shots I have ever taken was one which could have been taken with a 100$ P&S.


So when somebody says that equipment is secondry, all it means is that "Other things are more important".

From your posts, it appears that you really want an IS because you want to do hand held low light photography.
But the problem is that if you are into landscapes(which I am assuming you are), your getting the 28-135 will actually be limiting for you.

So its not a case of persisting with "el-cheapo" but understanding, where's the limitation. Is it in your mind or in the camera.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by deepakvrao

Lens based IS is better for following reasons:

1. The new lens IS gives 4 stop stabilization even at longer FLs

Agree with you here. for 500mm etc., in lens makes better sense. but its 2-3 stop, not 5 stop.

1. Lens IS gives visible stabilization in the VF which is remarkable. It helps in framing, knowing how good your image will finally be as well as helps stabilize your own hands with the confidence that it gives

Agree on this point. But with Live view, this point is not that much important.

1. With lens IS you pay for IS once while with body IS you pay with every body upgrade - and eventually bodies are upgraded more than lenses [once you have a good collection of lenses
2. Lens IS is tailored for that particular lens while body IS is a one for all answer
3. You can get IS with film too - its still used you know

Umm how much premium is in body IS? In body IS bodies cost same as ones from canikon. Let me tell you a secret. Canon and Nikon do not make in body IS because they will kill the golden goose. IS lenses!
As for tailored for a lens, thats all fud.

So for a very practical summary.
1. Upto 150mm or so in body IS and in lens IS give you around 3 stops often, and 2 stops consistently. Some shooters can hit 4 stops.
2. 600mm shooter? Go for in lens.

In the end the purpose of IS to give a certain stop advantage.
If it is tailored to go to mars its irrelevant.

You want IS just so that you can get shots without blur at slower shutter speeds.
Thats the whole point.
If you are a medium telephoto or wide angle shooter, in lens or in body will not make any different to your aim of getting a crisper shot at slower shutter speeds.