The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Captain Midnight vs Cool Hand Luke?

lowep

Member
Sony claims the Steadyshot technology built into the likes of the a900 delivers a 2.5 to 4-stop reduction in blurring produced by camera shake - a significant improvement in being able to shoot hand-held in low light.

Canikon claims their DSLRs deliver superior performance at high isos - also a significant improvement in being able to shoot hand-held in low light.

So which solution is best for hand holding in low light?
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Better ergonomics, soft shutter, these are also factors that help CaNikon besides VR or IS in their lenses.

For Sony to be a leading producer of imaging sensors only to be usurped by the advances of Nikon's design speaks volume for itself.;)
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
Both work, but VR can be hit and miss. I never liked the A900 in-body VR. I much prefer in-lens versions because you can preview the effect - plus it just seems to be more effective.

I vote we have both great high ISO and in-lens VR :salute:

Quentin

PS and a fast lens...
 

lowep

Member
According to this focal length of Canon IS lenses doesn't drop below 70mm (?) whereas focal length of Nikon VR lenses goes up from a 10.5mm fisheye and Sony Steadyshot works with any mountable lens?

Looks like Canon claims IS allows three to five steps of stabilisation that is about the same as Sony claims for its Steadyshot solution. Not sure about Nikon VR.
 

pegelli

Well-known member
I am a firm believer that there is no "best sytem" and that it can even vary from user to user.

This is based on the following thoughts and observations
1) a friend and I compared my 100-400 on Sony A700 with in body vs. his Canon 40D and 100-400 with in-lens. We compared 40 handheld shots at 1/125 and 40 at 1/25 sec at 400 mm. Number of sharps shots was equal between us. Then we switched, he used my camera and I his. Again similar number of sharp shots between us, but much less (just over half) of what we had using our own system. He was put off by not having the stabilisation visible in the viewfinder, while I was distracted by it and was continuously looking for the (non existent) shake bars. Typical case where familiarity and personal preference determine the winner, not the actual hardware.

2) In body will stabilise any lens, not many systems available with stabilized primes from 20 - 600 mm, but some IS lenses (if you have them) will likely perform better. So what do you want, the best for a few lenses or less performance for all your lenses. Again, no right answer, it purely depends what you want and need.

3) In my mind high iso noise performance after careful exposure and optimum PP to remove noise/keep detail is hardly different between systems of the same technology vintage. Pixel peeping yes there is a difference, in practical use I think it's insignificant.

So before we can answer your question you need to tell us which bodies/lenses you're thinking about and then "maybe" some people could give some pointers which would perform better under certain circumstances.
 

lowep

Member
If it is right that at the end of the pipeline higher iso noise performance does not deliver higher gains in IQ, then rather than asking about in-camera stabilising versus higher iso noise performance it may be more relevant to compare in-camera stabilising with in-lens stabilising?

Or at the end of the day is there so little difference in the impact of these various stabilising technologies on ability to shoot hand held in low light that other factors such as ergonomics and user familiarity (ie stick with the system you know best) are more important to consider.

"which bodies/lenses you're thinking about.."

Bodies?
Canon 5d mark II aka Captain Midnight
Sony A900 aka Cool Hand Luke

Lens?
28mm 50mm primes for low light hand held documentary/photojournalism/events/street/etc ie no bazouka lens required

$$?
less is better
 

Paratom

Well-known member
As soon as you have any moving subjects in the image for example people higher ISO (which means shorter exposure) would be an advantage.
Personally I find IS (or sensor stabi) mainly usefull for focal length 100mm and longer.
I allways get back to fast lenses which allows me to shoot not higher then 1000-1600 ISO, still with exp times which let me keep exp short enough to freeze some subject movement. However this means that one has to deal with and to like shallow DOF.
I like ;)
 

pegelli

Well-known member
Intereresting comparison here, and pixel peeping noise comparison here

But......

If you need faster shutter speeds to avoid subject motion blur the Canon might have a nose length advantage (but despite this I stay with my point 3 above).

If you have more quiet subjects and just want to avoid camera shake blur the 2-3 stops from in body SSS will bring a lot more gains than lack of an in lens stabilized 28/50 for the Canon.
 

lowep

Member
If you have more quiet subjects and just want to avoid camera shake blur the 2-3 stops from in body SSS will bring a lot more gains than lack of an in lens stabilized 28/50 for the Canon

thanks :thumbup: maybe also offset greater risk of noticeable camera shake blur moving up to a +20MP FF camera
 
Last edited:
Top