shaky hands

Due to an illness my hands shake, and this poses a problem holding the camera. I

use both a tripod and a mono pod. Which would have more of an advantage, a

camera with had image stabilization in the body, or a lens with image

stabilization? I am more concerned with the quality of the the photo, as well

as the differences between thee camera and the lens.

Allen!

 

I have suffered with a severe case of motor tremors all my life, I am not talking about a slight tremor either, I do not own any stabilization equipment, but I probably will in the future, but over the years I have developed a few techniques to help me hand hold a camera for a shot, one way is to cross my left arm over my chest and grab my right arm just below the shoulder, this also forces my right arm tight against my side, and then I place the camera lens in the crook of my left arm instead of holding the camera with my left hand, and take a lesson from gun shooters, take a deep breath then let it out half way then gently push down on the shutter button, this is especially helpful with telephoto lenses, but isn't really practical with very short lenses, for them I rely on fast lenses and good lighting for a fast shutter speed, or the use of a flash!

 

Good luck!

 

Ken.

Allan, if you're using a good, solid tripod, the need for IS is questionable. With a monopod, I don't know. I always use a tripod, or shoot hand-held at 1/250 or faster. I have the same problem - no illness, just essential tremor due to age. So far, I haven't felt the need for IS in any form.....

If you use a tripod it won't matter if you have image stabilization or not, the cable release, or what ever kind of remote release your camera has, will isolate the camera from your hand movements. A monopod on the other hand will only limit up and down movement, but will allow you more flexibility and speed, so the image stabilization will come in handy there.

 

If you want to see real world results, take your gear to the camera store and try out the lens and camera options there. Any quality camera show will allow you to test the equipment before purchasing.

 

- Randy

However the ground/floor can be the source of vibration which will travel up the tripod. Heavy traffic, low flying planes, subways etc may shake any struture. Dishes rattling on a shelf, or puddles with waves are evidence of vibration. Built in stabilization would probably be preferable in these cases.

If you use a tripod auto-stabilization will work AGAINST you. It usually has to be turned off if the camera is on a tripod.

 

Use a long, flexible cable release and be happy.

Whether IS would work on a tripod depends if the motion introduced by whatever vibrates it is identical to the motion introduced by handholding. This is not likely.

 

In lens IS is obviously more expensive if you want more than one lens and it will not benefit lenses that do not have IS as in-body IS will.

<i>Whether IS would work on a tripod depends if the motion introduced by whatever vibrates it is identical to the motion introduced by handholding.</i><p>

 

IS won't work WITHOUT motion in the camera, and there is always motion with handheld cameras. Tripod use with IS acrivated will very often cause the image to unaccountably JUMP as the camera looks for something to do.

I wasn't aware IS systems look for something to do. Correct me if I am wrong here: in-lens systems use a floating optical element to compensate for high-frequency vibration, and in-camera systems use a moving mount for the sensor which moves the sensor against the vibration.

 

I can see how such a 'jump' might occur -- I think. It is harder for me to imagine a tripod that doesn't communicate vibration, I guess. No doubt there are such machines, probably beyond my needs and price-range.

To answer the question directly, there was an interview with Pentax (I think) engineers a month or two ago that discussed that moving lens elements is more effective for longer focal lengths, and moving the sensor is more effective for shorter focal lengths. Does anyone have a link to that article/interview?

Canon has some long IS lenses that work fine with a tripod, but Pico's right, most IS systems introduce blur when used with a tripod. However, IS with a monopod works quite well, and the combination together works better than with either by itself.

 

In lens IS is almost universally said to offer more stability than in body IS. The claims are that stability gains are generally better with in lens IS. However, in body IS works with all lenses, at least to some degree. I've never tested in body IS though. I do know that not all IS lenses are created equal. Canon's newer designed IS systems are better than the early ones.

Image stabilization in the lens is more effective than in the body of the camera. It's easier to bend a bundle of light rays than to move the entire sensor. However, image stabilization in the camera works with all compatible lenses, not just ones with IS. At this point in time, only the low-end digital cameras have this feature. Nikon and Canon have IS only in lenses.