IS and tripods

Why do I always read one should turn off image stabilisation when using a tripod? I can understand the IS is

redundant, but what harm can it do?

Im not sure of the nuts and bolts, but it can, and will do harm.

 

I think that the IS tries to correct movement that doesnt exist and ends up blurring rather than helping.

 

Unless you are really bad at using a tripod, which shouldnt be that hard, IS/VR should not be necessary. If it is, try using a remote shutter release, the self timer and mirror lock up.

It may depend on the particular incarnation of anti-shake but apparently some shut-off when detecting the motion (or almost complete lack of motion) from the tripod but others still detect tiny motions, react, then react to the reaction setting up sort of a feedback. I think I've seen some effects from that with my KM 7D on a few occasions but only at one had a comparable nearby shooter that I could compare. It did seem that his images were just a very small bit sharper when pixel peeped. It wasn't set up as a test so I can't be sure there weren't other factors.

 

OTOH, I have a different fairly light tripod that is pretty susceptible to breezes. At some point I'll probably test to see if leaving it on helps on longer shots with it. If you are like me, remembering to turn it off or back on again may be the bigger problem.

When operational, IS can slowly drift. Fine for a 1/15s exposure, but not for a 15 second exposure.

 

So the general rule is really to turn off IS for long exposures on tripods. For short exposures it really doesn't matter.

 

Some Canon lenses will turn themselves off (or at least stop applying corrections) if they don't detect any movement and so don't need to be manually switched off.

The original Canon IS (as on the 75-300mm IS) needs to be turned off when on a tripod. As hinted, the newer ones will not affect or effect on a tripod. There are something like 4 generations (I think) of IS out there, so you need to check the instruction manual for the particular lens to know what is and is not necessary. Same goes for IS and panning.

If you've got an IS lens, give it a try. It depends on the lens, I believe some can use IS when on tripod, others not. I

know from personal experience: putting a Canon 24-105 on a tripod and taking a shot of duration 1~2 seconds, you

get spectacturally messed up results.

Thanks to one and all, now it's clear.

Excuse me for going off on a tangent (and moderator please move to appropriate forum if needed), but it's related to the original post:

 

Is there a clear advantage between the in-camera IS and in-lens IS, or is it a 50-50 thing that's up to the users opinion/prefrerence?

 

My first thought would be that it takes less power and less mechanics to set the CMOS in a gyro stabilizer (if that's what is used for in-camera) than a heavy lens element. Canon of course swears by in-lens IS--but might that be because the elegance of putting the IS on the CMOS escaped them and by the time in-camera IS became the new standard, Canon had already invested so deeply with their method that a change would be seen as a defeat?

Just wondering where this issue stands?

--Jim

<i>Canon of course swears by in-lens IS--but might that be because the elegance of putting the IS on the CMOS escaped them and by the time in-camera IS became the new standard, Canon had already invested so deeply with their method that a change would be seen as a defeat? Just wondering where this issue stands</i>

<p>

Where it stands is that your speculation bears no resemblance to reality. Lens-based IS is simply more effective, and other manufacturers use body-based because they can't afford to re-engineer their whole lens line.

<p>

By the way, gyros are not used for the actual stabilization in either case. They are used to detect motion.