How good/useful is IS in daily work?

[kurt_heintzelman]

I've been quietly following this thread for some time now, but after reading Arthur's comments (as well as Martin's rather bizarre retorts), I feel compelled to add my humble opinion as to the question of how useful IS technology is in day-to-day "work"...

 

I can't yet afford one of Canon's image stabilized "big glass" lenses, but I have been fortunate enough to own the modest 300/4 IS and the EOS 1.4x extender for several years (I traded in my 400/5.6L for the 300 IS); based on my experience with only this one image stabilized lens, I will say that the efficacy, power, and ingenuity of IS technology was immediately apparent to me after viewing my first roll of slide film taken through this lens. In fact, I do believe I was one of the first Photo.netters who had the balls to report that I was quite frequently obtaining SHARP images with the "420mm/5.6L IS" (300 X 1.4 = 420) at shutter speeds as slow as 1/30 sec., and on occasion, even 1/15 sec. I went "on record" to suggest that Canon's claim of an additional two stops of "hand-hold-ability" with L series IS lenses seemed VERY conservative... Subsequently, a number of other community members responded by suggesting that I might just be full of bullshit. [indeed, although I certainly don't expect him to recall it, I actually e-mailed Arthur Morris about my above mentioned findings in 1998, and his e-mailed response to me about this particular part of my correspondence was a single word: "Great!" (Or was it, "Fantastic!")?. Arthur may not have had any such intentions in mind when he offered this response, but it struck me as being a rather snub and patronizing reply that strongly suggested skepticism, incredulity, and dismissal on his part. I mention this instance mainly because it suggests that Arthur is a Canon contract photographer who thinks for himself].

 

At any rate, back in '98, I was "foolish" enough to suggest that the 420mm/5.6L IS rig could easily capture sharp, hand-held shots at shutter speeds as slow as 1/15 sec. (How many stops would this be below ~1/420 sec.??). Last year, Bob Royse visited me at my apartment in north Columbus, and I projected for him a number of my aviary bird slides shot on Velvia rated at 100 ISO (thanks, Arthur!), and taken with the 420/5.6L IS rig, many of which were exposed at VERY slow shutter speeds. Bob Royse is an accomplished birder and bird photographer, and he seemed to like my humble slides, especially my Indigo Bunting images. But, I do believe that at the time, Bob was also somewhat skeptical about my claim that many of my shots were captured at such slow shutter speeds]. Well, it's now the year 2000, and bird photographers such as Arthur Morris (and Bob Royse) are lately reporting that they're routinely nailing SHARP images with big glass IS lenses and teleconvertors, at focal lengths of 1200mm or more (by combining teleconvertors), with shutter speeds in the vicinity of 1/45 sec.! (Gee, just how many stops below ~1/1200 sec. are we talking HERE??).

[clivecc]

I think that this is starting to look like the equivalent of "road rage" on the net!!!

 

Come on guys ....would you speak this way face to face with a fellow photographer in the field?????

 

Enough said. I have the 300mm F4 IS and the 300mm F2.8 IS lens and am looking forward to getting a 600mm F4 IS in the near future to replace my non IS 600mm. The IS is a great feature and does indeed work well!!. This, however, does not mean that the non IS lenses are second rate. I just think that IS gives the user more freedom in certain situations to hand hold or use a light bean bag for support. IS will certaily help me shooting from a car window on a 600mm and will allow me to use my Gitzo 1340 + Arca B1 instead of my Gitzo 500 + Arca B2 when weight is an issue (when isn't it).

 

I've grown to love IS but doesn't mean I can't do without it. For those who don't yet have IS and can't afford it, wait a bit and maybe the prices will drop or the new Diffractive Optics may make things a lot more affordable. Untill then there is no reason why you can't enjoy what you have....I've seen a LOT of VERY good wildlife shots taken with old Canon and Nikon manual focus lenses!!!!!

[bobatkins]

This thread will soon be edited. Just a warning in case you wonder where your comments have gone. While much of the information is useful, the tone of some of the posts is less than desirable. After due reflection, I'd guess that even some of those making the comments might not wish them to live in the archives forever.

[wildpicture]

Just today I found this test review by Fritz Pölking, a famous wildlife photographer from Germany, who has published many books on wildlife photography. On his site he makes a comparison on sharpness with and without IS and compares it to mirror lock up. Very thourough and interesting to read. <a href="http://www.poelking.de/englisch/ScharfeF.htm">Sharpness test</a>

<p>

Personally I would go for IS if I had the choice and could af���r it.^#ut I will still keep using my old and trusted Canon FD manual focus equipment.

[dcphotog]

I shot Nikon for years and switched because of all the repair problems I was having with F4's and other minor stuff. I haven't had one repair problem that wasn't my fault since I switched 7+ years ago. Canon wins.

 

I am a professional photojournalist and have been since '88. I have won too many national, state, and local awards to list. I do nature photography for the love of it- not for a living. Maybe someday I will decide to bust my butt to make a living that way but not today.

 

I use the 400/2.8IS after switching from the non IS version. It, the IS, is optically sharper. I did make many "good to above average" sharp photos with the old 400 and 2x. But now with the new IS and 2x I too cannot tell when I have shot with the 2x and without about 80% of the time. The images with IS and a 2x are TACK sharp 90% of the time or better compared to about 40% of the time with the old 400 and a 2x. And I push my new IS 400 to the limits and continue to be surprised and happy with the extra control it gives me over my picture taking.

 

Yes my technique is better than about 90% of the pro/pro amatuer's out there. I shoot more film in a month than most shoot in a year and laugh when I see comments made above by people that are wanna be's, aren't making a living with photography, cannot afford the pro IS glass, or are Nikon defensives. Nikon while having a good name, excellent optics, and a great camera with the F5 are still playing catch up in the nature photography market place. The only place they have taken the lead is with the D1 (which the paper will be making me shoot with shortly so I will use Nikon for that work by years end). When Nikon finally introduces big lenses with their (copycat and catch up) VR technology that can be used on a tripod then the debate will end because everyone who can afford it will be making sharper images more consistanly like Canon shooters are already doing.

 

Comparing non IS lenses on a tripod to IS lenses on a tripod using slow shutter speeds (250th or under)is truly no comparison- converters or not- IS lenses will win everytime. You can shoot 3-4x slower, shoot at the mirror slap intensive 1/15th second and not worry about it, pan with subjects very cleanly and easily, and sometimes get shots that used to be impossible because there was no time for perfect technique. Take the tripod away, and rest the lens on sand or dirt, a beanbag, or hand hold it and NON IS lenses would be making a lot of trash cans full of poor quality images.

 

Oh yeah bean bagging on a window with IS is a dream where before it was something I resorted to and crossed my fingers until I got the film back. It is scary but the slower the shutter speed (within limits of course) the sharper the IS lenses are when on a bean bag. I have proven this on my light table over, and over.

 

The best thing about IS is that it allows you to push perfect technique farther, and do things you couldn't do. And get perfectly sharp images consistantly when you couldn't have done it without!

 

By the way IS has convinced me that the old 20% loss of sharpness when using 2x converters wasn't from the added glass but from vibration and minute movents at the camera. Now it may be something like 2% loss with 1.4x, and MAYBE 5% loss with the 2x. That is a big improvement, one that is hard to notice under a loupe. One that is worth the extra dollars, and one that is worth wasting valuable time defending on a thread like this.

 

Enough said.

[stanley_mcmanus]

Let's get back to Econ 101 for a moment. Say the words "Opportunity Cost". If I have a pile of money that I don't know what to do with the Opportunity Cost of buying a $8,000 - $11,000 new IS telephoto lens is not very high. However, if I am like most of us here, the OC of such a purchase is extremely high. My photography is far better off if I spend that money on visiting places with interesting subject matter, or taking a course from a master photographer. This is not a comment on IS/VR or any technology. It is an observation on the realities of life for the vast majority of us. I would rather be in Florida with my old 500mm f/4.5 bought used, photographing the birds, than be at home with a brand new shiny 500mm f/4 IS lens. It is that simple.

 

About 2 years ago I purchased a pair of EOS3 cameras. Wonderful machines they are. Now I find that a much admired pro describes the EOS3 as a soap box derby car compared to the new EOS 1v. Perhaps, if I made a living selling bird photos and bird tours I would spend the money to get the 1v. But, I don't. I do this for fun. If I add a body to my collection in the future it will probably be a digital body when they are ready to meet my needs. And the EOS3 and 500mm f/4.5 allow me to have lots of fun shooting birds and other animals. And I get plenty of sharp pictures. Would I get more with IS? The anser for me is NO. Because with IS, I would not have the extra money to pursure my hobby. The OC of IS is too great for me at this time.

 

If you have IS or VR or an 1v or an F5, please enjoy it with all of my best wishes. Maybe we can shoot side by side one day for the enjoyment of the shoot and the companionship. But please, lets acknowledge some individual needs and realities in this discussion.

[simon_pearson]

Finally someone has come up with a valid argument without continuing this p***ing contest. It's been embarrassing!!

 

Thankyou very much, Stanley, for writing so well what I'm sure many of us were thinking!!

 

Happy shooting with or without your IS/VR/non-IS/non-VR/AF/MF lens, whichever works for you and you can afford.

 

Cheers,

[bobatkins]

Stanley of course is correct, and puts us back on track.

 

Is IS useful? - yes, of course it is.

 

Is IS essential? - no, of course it isn't.

 

Is IS worth the extra cost? - it depends on how much money you have.

 

Do you need IS? - it depends on if you're trying to make a living from your images and every slighly soft image costs you a potential sale.

 

We have forum particpants ranging from rank beginners through "weekend warriers" to full time professional shooters, and within these groups I know we have both pennyless students and retired CEOs of major corporations. What one may regard as essential may be a total extravagence to another, and what one regards as pocket change may be the total yearly photography budget for another. So let's temper our comments with that in mind.

[dcphotog]

Stanley you are correct that buying equipment and then not being able to afford to take a trip probably isn't the best thing to do. But then there are people who photograph in their backyards so to say and want to make the most of each oppurtunity there and IS may allow them to do that. And there are people who, without the extra sharp images that IS allows them to produce, wouldn't be able to afford to go to the exotic and wonderfully photogenic places that they do or be able to provide wonderful learning experiences in the form of photographic seminars for others.

 

Yes photography isn't solely about equipment. Equipment doesn't make the photographer. But many photographers get to a point with their ability and technique where they need and want to take it further. Better equipment allows them to do that. More equipment allows them more flexibilty and more oppurtinity to make images (and money too, sometimes)when others who are less fortunate and cannot afford to, or too thrifty to buy, better equipment. I, like most pros, could easily outshoot (with basic equipment) most advanced amateurs who have the best equipment. It is something I have done when verbally assaulted by those who don't have the best equipment. They shoot with my big lens and top of the line body and I switch to the one they are using. Without fail I have an easier time shooting with their "cheap" gear then they do with my "expensive" gear. Usually they get no usable shots but are excited by the new world they see before them and are challenged to learn better technique and get to the point where they can afford equipment like mine. I have always been able to create something decent, if not excellent, by the added challenge and show them it doesn't matter what equipment they use if they apply it correctly. It doesn't have to be an IS debate either- it use to be manual vs AF, Auto Exposure vs Manual Exposure, motor driven vs manual advance, etc, etc.

 

When I go on location whether it is the local nature center, or a distant national park, many people question how do I afford all the top of the line gear and film if I'm not a professional nature photographer? I tell them that it is supplemented by my full time job as a photojournalist which I also use some of the gear for, and that when a system is built over time with thought and dedication the cost doesn't seem that high. The satisfaction I receive from making the images makes the cost seem insignificant. Bottom line is I am not rich, not from a rich family, but have top of the line equipment because I have the desire and drive to do so. I found a way, so can others, if they are at that point in their photographic lifes when they feel they need to take their photography to another level.

 

I have photographed side by side with any photographer, rich, poor, pro, amateur, incompetent or otherwise. Those who have met me on location who are not up to speed have received free on location seminars from me to help them improve more times than I can remember and usually at the cost of my photographing in good light. I get a lot of satisfaction from those interactions, sometimes more than I do actually photographing that day. The glow of understanding on their faces is wonderful. We cannot see the reaction on the faces of those who read these threads but hopefully the answers from those of us with experience on the topic creates that same burst of understanding.

 

And the title of the thread questions how useful IS is in daily work? That leads me to believe that it was asking the opinion of those who make a living, fully or part time, from photography and use/need the IS technology.

 

Dan Creighton

Pottstown PA

[dcphotog]

The above post by me- after two paragraphs were edited, and other posts above it were deleted appears to suggest that I was calling Arthur Morris a sold out Canon shooter. When in fact it, the post the way I originally wrote it, was defending Mr Morris to attacks in those deleted posts.

 

I think Mr Morris is very talented, and has proven himself to be humble and very interested in genuinely helping other nature photographers. Not just Canon shooters.

 

I hold him in high regard and want to make that clear now that my original post no longer makes sense.

 

To see the benefits and capabilities of IS long glass look at his website at www.BirdsasArt.com. Look in the newsletter archives, and also subscribe to the newsletter. You will be better for it and your questions about IS will be answered.

 

Dan Creighton

[arthur_morris_birds_as_art]

Almost a year later I note with great sadness that all of my remarks have been deleted from this thread. I find it extremely hard to believe that all of my (rather lengthy) comments were "persaonl attachks." Perhaps this is intended to serve as punishment by the "administrators" of this site; when I used to visit regularly and contribute often, I would often complain about personal attacks directed at me. None of the attacks would ever be removed until I defended myself... So much for freedom of speech.

Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART