Do We Need Image Stabilization?

[jbauer]

Long before IS or VR or OS there was a version of image stabilization that has stood the test of time, many

people still use it successfully today. You might have heard of it. It's called a decent set of tripod legs and

a good ball head. If you really think about your shooting and what you shoot most, do you need image

stabilization in the lens or in the body? Or is this really a kind of "photographic crutch" that companies are

feeding up and charging us more for in the long run.

 

I can throw my camera and lens on my trusty tripod and I have stops and stops of wonderful exposure freedom when

it comes to shutter speed. More freedom than I could ever get from a stabilized lens or body. And the great

thing is that this stabilization system works on any lens, any body and any equipment that I might have. Talk

about flexibility! I hear people argue all the time about what is better, in camera or lens-based stabilization.

How about neither? Isn't that an option?

 

Companies like Canon are now pushing stabilization down into less expensive lenses and I cannot decide if that is

a good thing overall or not. I think in the long run I would almost always prefer faster lenses paired with a

good tripod to any stabilization system in my equipment. Maybe we have become "tripod lazy" and we just cannot

be bothered anymore to drag out the 'ole three legged wonder.

 

What do you think?

[znabal]

There are some places where the ole' trusty tripod just can't go

That's not something I think...it is something I know :) -jeffl

[bobatkins]

Of course we don't ned image stabilization. We don't need autofocus either, manual focus is fine. We don't need automatic exposure, anyone can match a needle or use a light meter. We don't need TTL flash metering systems, since you can get perfect flash exposure using guide numbers.

 

There are lots of things that modern camera systems have that we don't need.

[geoffs1]

"[a tripod] works on any lens, any body and any equipment that I might have."

 

But not on every subject...<div></div>

[phule]

[[i can throw my camera and lens on my trusty tripod ]]

 

I'm really rather surprised you've not encountered any location or venue that prohibits tripods.

[Matt Laur]

The images that needed stabilization are the ones that what they needed to be because of stabilization. If you don't need those images, then you don't stabilization. Me? I sometimes need it. Yay for stabilization. Sometimes I need a tripod, too, and <i>cannot use one</i>. I'm glad that I don't have to give up on those images.

[chelsea]

When I'm paddling my canoe down the lake and into the back swamp, blessed be image stabilization. When I'm on a bird-watching tour with my buddies and don't have time to hold everyone up while I set up a tripod, blessed be the image stabilization. And blessed be digital which allows me to switch to a higher ISO and higher speed, and auto focus. For all other times, when I HAVE time, my trusty tripod comes with me. I'm usually not one to go after bells and whistles, but it's nice to have the extra options when needed.

[bruce_margolis]

"I can throw my camera and lens on my trusty tripod and I have stops and stops of wonderful exposure freedom when it comes to shutter speed"

 

Jared, I agree with you BUT.........

 

As said, sometimes it is impossible -- or at least impractical -- to carry around a tripod. And what is a tripod? Simply a photographer's tool. That's the way I see all the tools, whether they be lenses of different focal lengths, filters, image stabalization, bellows, autofocus, gimbal head, software, etc.

 

Funny, I remember there were many who decried the use of AF lenses. To some that was heresy. If you were a REAL purist, you would use only MF lenses. In other words, do everything the 'old' way. For that matter, some large format photogs looked down at 35mm as merely a snapshot camera rig.

 

Bottom line, image stabalization is just another tool but one I happen to appreciate. As for "preferring a tripod," that's where I agree with you. But again, it is simply not realistic to think a tripod is possible in all situations.

[benjaminoliverhicks]

I just shot a music festival, and bad lighting + tripods prohibited = situation where IS helps A LOT

[sattler123]

Do we need IS? Yes!

[benjaminoliverhicks]

and no flash allowed

[Ed_Ingold]

<i>You might have heard of it. It's called a decent set of tripod legs ... </i>

<p>

This sounds like something my kids or grandchildren would come up with. Everything is new to them and they can't believe they didn't think of it first.

<p>

I carried a Nikkor 80-200/2.8 AFS for several years, using it for perhaps 5% of my shooting. Since getting a Nikkor 70-200/2.8 AFS VR, I use it over 25% of the time. I carried a tripod then and carry it now, but it's not always convenient (or legal) to use. Offhand, I'd say there is a need for image stabilization :-)

[KenPapai]

I am "with" you too Jared having myself never used an IS (Canon) lens. I love my tripods, but there are many places a tripod won't work.

 

It is naive, and somewhat tyro, to rail at technology -- re-read Bob's answer.

 

We all know already when we need stabilization and when we don't -- and, at the same time, what sort of stabilization system to employ.

[phule]

[[There are lots of things that modern camera systems have that we don't need.]]

 

For that matter, we don't need cameras at all. Ochre and a cave wall was fine before, it should be fine now...

[jbauer]

If you could only have one or the other to get sharp shots in low light - which would it be? Image stabilization or wide, constant apertures? I personally think that wide apertures are definitely more usable and useful than image stabilization.

 

What say ye?

[nhut-nguyen]

Technology advancement makes lives better, easier and more enjoyable.

[Matt Laur]

<i>would it be? Image stabilization or wide, constant apertures?</i>

<br><br>

False dichotomy! Trick question!

<br><Br>

Besides, one of the very reasons you DO want to have stabilization is so that you can stop down a lens (for sharper/deeper focus) in poorer light. At least, that's one of the ways I use it.

[starvy]

before i bought my sony a100 i had used film for serious work. i hated tripods and simply would not consider using them. having tasted in body stabilisation i find it very useful.

[mrossi]

I used my IS lens to help ID banded falcons we were monitoring this year. Standing there, looking from a distance far greater than any binocs could see, the IS would kick in, I could snap a shot, and then zoom on the LCD to see what otherwise wouldn't have been possible.

<br><br>

What about panning birds in flight? What about panning something that you weren't expecting to fly out of nowhere but did? I'm a big fan of tripods and try to use mine whenever feasible, but I also love the extra performance & sharpness made possible by IS. I'm talking of the Canon 100-400IS if that matters.

[steve_lantz]

Besides the above reasons I'll add another, for me at least. I use to be able to bring home medals in large bore pistol (for some reason couldn't do that good in small bore) and for rifle I competed with a flintlock. At almost 62 years of age I can still shoot pretty good but not well enough to win matches. The absolute rock steadiness just isn't there anymore.

 

Back in those days, using the same techniques for shooting a camera I could hold steady at some amazingly slow shutter speeds, but that was also "back in the day".

 

I use a tripod or mono pod more now then in my earlier years but I love IS on longer lenses when a either can't be used or aren't with me.

[geoffs1]

Jared Bauer, "If you could only have one or the other to get sharp shots in low light"

 

Not an important question for me. Most of the time, I'm not using IS to shoot in low light. I mostly use it because I want to use a "too slow" shutter speed for dramatic effect. Next after that, I use it for shooting from unstable platforms. A distance third (maybe even fourth) place is low-light shooting.

[hugh_croft]

I am very happy that I no longer need to lug a tripod around - a real liberation.

[matthijs]

The use of tripods cost time, money, carrying capacity and space.

 

As I hardly have any of those in abundance i prefer hand holding my shots. I get that using daylight, high ISO, a fast lens, IS or setting lower standards for IQ.

 

When I'm retired and my kids are out of the house I'll buy a tripod.

[david_henderson]

"What say ye?"

 

Ye say that wide apertures with their limited depth of field are no use for me. I need IS or a tripod to give me the aperture/shutter speed combinations I need to use. The tripod offers greater flexibility in terms of the camera settings, but less in terms of locational flexibility because I can't use a tripod everywhere. I need both, which means that yes, I need IS and regard it as one of the most significant camera developments.

[www.roelandebruijn.nl]

I am a wedding photographer. Have you ever tried to follow a dancing bride around, or her walking down the aisle, or make-op being applied in dark room? IS comes in handy in those situations. Whereas tripod would slow me down considerably.

 

As usual with these kinds of questions: horses for courses.