Decisions, decisions

[Knorp]

All this discussion around IS and dual IS makes me a bit thoughtful. My long telephoto combo is a Nikon D2Xs, a camera that isn't really useful beyond ISO 400, with an old Nikkor 300mm f/4 AF (450mm eqv.). I don't use that combo in the dark of course, but during daylight hours, I get some very sharp photos, more than sharp enough for the stock agencies. Are we getting so dependent on crutches that we forget how to walk?

Mmm, it's not about crutches it's more like blade-like prosthetic legs ... :toocool:

 

[ptomsu]

All this discussion around IS and dual IS makes me a bit thoughtful. My long telephoto combo is a Nikon D2Xs, a camera that isn't really useful beyond ISO 400, with an old Nikkor 300mm f/4 AF (450mm eqv.). I don't use that combo in the dark of course, but during daylight hours, I get some very sharp photos, more than sharp enough for the stock agencies. Are we getting so dependent on crutches that we forget how to walk?

Jorgen,

what you need to bring into the equation is the fact that this discussion arose from the usage of the PL 100-400 lens on the EM1.2. And this lens has only F6.3 at the long end. SO you are easily ending up with either high ISO or longer shutter speeds even in good decent light, where optimal IS however it is implemented is becoming a must very quickly.

Add to that the fact that at the long end AF requires usually much better accuracy and you see what the issues are.

On the Nikon with the 4/300 this is definitely an easier task, even if this is done on a crop sensor. And then add the weight and size of the D2X and the 4/300 combo that also significantly contributes to easier steady holding. This is for sure a disadvantage of smaller camera/lens combos as we get today with m43 that make OIS or IBIS or even a combination of both very desirable.

For example you see a huge difference on my XT2 (APSC) with the 100-400 mounted, especially on the long end, as soon as OIS kicks in, that does simple magic in that lens. Without OIS this lens would be almost unusable in the majority of situations of course even more at the long end.

So a perfect combination of IS technologies is for sure a big help to increase the keeper rate, especially when using the overall lighter mirrorless camera bodies with long lenses.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Jorgen,

what you need to bring into the equation is the fact that this discussion arose from the usage of the PL 100-400 lens on the EM1.2. And this lens has only F6.3 at the long end. SO you are easily ending up with either high ISO or longer shutter speeds even in good decent light, where optimal IS however it is implemented is becoming a must very quickly.

Add to that the fact that at the long end AF requires usually much better accuracy and you see what the issues are.

On the Nikon with the 4/300 this is definitely an easier task, even if this is done on a crop sensor. And then add the weight and size of the D2X and the 4/300 combo that also significantly contributes to easier steady holding. This is for sure a disadvantage of smaller camera/lens combos as we get today with m43 that make OIS or IBIS or even a combination of both very desirable.

For example you see a huge difference on my XT2 (APSC) with the 100-400 mounted, especially on the long end, as soon as OIS kicks in, that does simple magic in that lens. Without OIS this lens would be almost unusable in the majority of situations of course even more at the long end.

So a perfect combination of IS technologies is for sure a big help to increase the keeper rate, especially when using the overall lighter mirrorless camera bodies with long lenses.

I agree in a way, particularly when we are talking about 800mm eqv. lenses hand held. And there are low light situations as well. Still, this discussion seems to come up with more or less any lens at any focal length. And yes, the big Nikon bodies are ideal for hand held telephoto use, not only because of the weight, but also the large grip, but that can be imitated pretty well by mounting a vertical grip on an E-M1, G85 or GH5.

 

[ptomsu]

I agree in a way, particularly when we are talking about 800mm eqv. lenses hand held. And there are low light situations as well. Still, this discussion seems to come up with more or less any lens at any focal length. And yes, the big Nikon bodies are ideal for hand held telephoto use, not only because of the weight, but also the large grip, but that can be imitated pretty well by mounting a vertical grip on an E-M1, G85 or GH5.

Right!

And also for shorter focal length IS is nice to have but definitely not required by me at all. I even can successfully handhold 1/15s or 1/8s with a 90mm lens on a Leica M repeatedly, but for sure it requires more concentration.

I think you are right also with the thought that we seem to shoot more lazy today because of IS than we were able to do some 10-15 years ago - translates to the fact that we were obviously shooting much more careful then

 

[Matix]

Right!

And also for shorter focal length IS is nice to have but definitely not required by me at all. I even can successfully handhold 1/15s or 1/8s with a 90mm lens on a Leica M repeatedly, but for sure it requires more concentration.

I think you are right also with the thought that we seem to shoot more lazy today because of IS than we were able to do some 10-15 years ago - translates to the fact that we were obviously shooting much more careful then

Haha.. good point, but then 10-15 years ago I was that much younger, and more stable too... I noted that when on the top deck of a small boat in Terra del Fuego and the Beagle Channel earlier this year, with a strong wind and moderate seas, using a 400mm lens the dual IS was indeed a great asset. Not to mention even on dry land with a less than perfect balance due to an old injury to my left foot, it helps too. When I was in my teens and 20's, shooting film with a manual exposure meter and no way to know how the exposure was... I still got good shots, but a lot of bad ones too. Not interested in going back to those days, so yes... The older we get the better we used to be, because we had to be.

Phil

 

[biglouis]

Not wishing to appear to be crowing too much about my new purchase but even I was surprised at this shot of our garden fox (who visits us each day). And it underlines Peter's point about how new technology enables lenses (like the 100-400) which would have been impossible a few years ago. You can't fight progress.

I was photographing, handheld, birds in the sky and the metering was returning 1/1600-1/2000 when the fox came to see what I was up to. He never approaches too near but he does like to sit and watch. It is a most attractive trait when a wild animal makes this kind of connection with humans and one of the reasons I like foxes so much. When I lowered the camera to take a few shots I did not have time to adjust the iso and you can see how slow the shutter was. This is close to tack sharp at the pixel level and even slightly off it would still reproduce to a reasonable print size and is in any case fine for web, newspapers or prints, in my experience, with no problem.

Maybe this dual-IS thing really does work?

400mm iso400 f6.3 1/15

(Edit: it is about a 70% crop from the full frame and I have put the full size export from LR up if you want to pixel peep. It is a 7MB file)