In-camera IS at long focal lengths

[A.M.D.A.]

How effective is the in-camera IS technology from the following manufacturers... when used with lenses of a 200mm focal length and longer?

PENTAX
Olympus
Sony

Would like to hear first-hand experience from people who use IS-equipped camera(s) from the above manufacturers, with lenses of a 200mm focal length or longer. Is the image-stabilizer as effective as with shorter focal-length lenses?

And please mention which camera/lens model you used.

[Sushigaijin]

My previous cameras were stabilized superzooms (sony H1 and H5) and now I shoot with a stabilized DSLR Olympus E510.

The stabilization on the superzooms worked amazingly well. I found handholding (=) 768mm to be no problem at 1/200 or above. Below that I'd brace against a tree or similar, which worked fine. Of course, that's with good handholding technique - I taught rifle shooting years ago in boy scouts, and the same shooting techniques transfer completely to photography.

The longest I've shot on my oly is (=) 510mm, and It works well also.

It's pretty obvious to me that body stabilization exceeds lens stabilization. The sony A900 proves that sensor size is not an issue. The olympus firmware allows the focal length to be changed manually, so that full-manual lenses can be used with stabilization. I can duct tape a 400mm lens to the front of my E510 and use it stabilized, even if the metering and AF don't work because I can set the stabilization focal length to 400mm. REALLY nice firmware upgrade for legacy lens people. It also means that the IS behaves differently at different focal lengths, so there is no reason that it shouldn't be as effective at 500mm as it is at 25mm.

Also, olympus upgraded the IS on the E3 body last year, and have upgraded it again on the E30 model being released this month - that's two upgrades in two years, and two IS lenses I didn't have to buy.

Canikon are holding on to lens based stabilization for two reasons: Body based doesn't do anything for film cameras, and they've both professed that lens based is better than body based. I have a feeling that they'll cross over soon also, especially with the a900 on the market now. It doesn't make sense to put IS in the lenses anymore, especially with a digital based market.

Edit:

Where I really see the IS working is handholding at very slow shutters, from 1/15 to 1/30s. Indoor shots at those shutters are totally possible, and common, with my 50mm (100=)

[Greg McCary]

I don't shoot the big zooms like Erik and am probably not the most steady handed either but with my 510 and now the E3 I can go as low a 1/30 to 1/60 sec at 150mm, maybe slower with ease. Yes, I couldn't do half of what I do without it. Most things I shoot a tripod would be very difficult to set up and higher iso's just have to much noise.

[Ron Kruger]

The IS in my Pentax K20D really amazed me at first. With a DA* 200mm f/2.8, I was able to get good shots hand-held at 1/60th, and excellent shots at anything above. The 14.6 megapixels probably is a factor as well.
I have, however, been experimenting with using a monopod with the IS off and find at those same shutter speeds, I get a little better quality picture than hand-held with IS on, so while the internal IS allows me to shoot a 200mm off-hand as well as I once did with a 50mm, there is a trade off, if you want to get picky. As Eric mentioned, much of shooting off-hand depends upon technique. I've been shooting a rifle for over 40 years and a camera for over 30, and I'm an excellent shot. I do the majority of my shooting on MF, by the way.
I'm not sure the internal IS is as good as IS lenses, but they're close, and the real advantage is having this technology for every lens you use. There's also a cost factor, because IS lenses of comparable quality are more expensive than those without it.

[Loupey]

First of all, I've never used a body-stabilized camera so I don't really qualify saying anything here.

Secondly, I do think that body stabilization makes more sense than a lens stabilized system.


But I did have a question: since the in-body stabilization occurs at the sensor level, you can't see the effects through the viewfinder, right? I shoot a lot with 500mm and 600mm setups and I really enjoy the lens-stabilized images in the viewfinder. Trying to see detail, compose, and focus at those focal lengths is difficult without lens stabilization - especially if the target is fast.

Just a thought.

[mellinsane]

Thanks for the useful info

[Canuck935]

Well I've only ever shot with Sony's in-body system, and at max focal length of 300mm. Works well enough for me.

[Greg McCary]

First of all, I've never used a body-stabilized camera so I don't really qualify saying anything here.

Secondly, I do think that body stabilization makes more sense than a lens stabilized system.


But I did have a question: since the in-body stabilization occurs at the sensor level, you can't see the effects through the viewfinder, right? I shoot a lot with 500mm and 600mm setups and I really enjoy the lens-stabilized images in the viewfinder. Trying to see detail, compose, and focus at those focal lengths is difficult without lens stabilization - especially if the target is fast.

Just a thought.

No Loupey you can't. You can in Live View. I never quite thought of that but it would be nice to see it in the VF. Good point.

[Loupey]

Well then, I guess that would be one small advantage of the in-lens system. Nice to be able to see exactly the effect one is getting before tripping the shutter.

Perhaps not much of an issue at the shorter focal lengths, but at long mm's the viewfinder image is so important. Like using a 10x~12x non-stabilized binoculars at a sporting event and waiting to see when/if one player says something (so you can read his lips). Very tiring to do when the image is jumping around.

[A.M.D.A.]

Thanks very much for the many replies everyone, and the wealth of useful info!

Sushigaijin – I did not previously know that Olympus allows focal lengths of a particular lens to be dialed in to optimize the in-camera IS system. This was one of my major debating points versus in-lens IS. No so much of a debate point any more, thanks! :thumbsup:

Do PENTAX and Sony allow "focal length dialing" too?

First of all, I've never used a body-stabilized camera so I don't really qualify saying anything here.

Secondly, I do think that body stabilization makes more sense than a lens stabilized system.


But I did have a question: since the in-body stabilization occurs at the sensor level, you can't see the effects through the viewfinder, right? I shoot a lot with 500mm and 600mm setups and I really enjoy the lens-stabilized images in the viewfinder. Trying to see detail, compose, and focus at those focal lengths is difficult without lens stabilization - especially if the target is fast.

Just a thought.

Good point.

I am wondering what if Olympus releases a Micro Four-Thirds camera body with IS, that would mean a stabilized view in the LCD screen, and if there is an EVF viewfinder – there also, since the view is being "feeded" from the sensor itself. Am I right?

[Sushigaijin]

You guys are ALL right.

It is a benefit of lens based systems that you get a stabilized viewfinder, and the EVF of any stabilized oly m4/3 camera will be stabilized also.

The EVFs of my sonys were stabilized when the IS was on, and it was a noticeable difference when shooting loooong telephoto - but much of that is cleared up by the SLR view...I think that part of the advantage is not having to wait for a slow refreshing LCD. The eye is much faster.

As to the answer to "dialing in" focal lengths, I am positive that the other systems automatically adjust for compatible lenses as the olympus does also. The "dialing in" is support for incompatible or legacy lenses. As to legacy and incompatible support with other systems, I don't know.

[Greg McCary]

Alex, Erik is right, No dialing in is required on lenses made for the 4/3rd mount. The dialing in is only for older OM lenses and I have put a couple of non Olympus lenses on my E3 as well. I think which ever way you go you will be happy. In body or in lens. Both have advantages.

[A.M.D.A.]

Thanks, Erik & Greg – I get it now.

[danic]

Do PENTAX and Sony allow "focal length dialing" too?

I do know Pentax allows you to dial in a focal length. I have a nice 55mm Super Tak lens, which allows me to use on the K100D Super. I get in body IS and a great legacy lens, all in one

[A.M.D.A.]

Thanks for the insight, danic.

By now I'm just about "sold out" for in-camera IS...

[Anbesol]

stabilizer on my a700 works very well at 200mm, I manage ~200mm at 1/10th-1/20th if I need to (usually don't though), but it works much better at wider focal ranges. I literally hand held a 2.5 second shot at 50mm and it came out sharp. Had to hold my breath and brace myself pretty firmly, but the point remains...

[A.M.D.A.]

Thanks for the reply, Anbesol.

So the IS in the a700 is a bit better at wide-ranges? That was my initial concern versus in-lens, since I shoot mostly birds/wildlife, and hardly anything at all which requires wide-angle or low-light. But of course, there are times...

[Anbesol]

Well, *any* IS will be better at wider angles. Just think, camera shake is a bigger problem at more telephoto lengths in the first place without IS, and IS can't compensate as well for the more long focal ranges (more severe shake). It isn't a 'tiny' difference, its a huge difference. At 50mm, I was able to actually shoot a 3 second exposure handheld, even if I was braced that well at 200mm, the minor shake would have been much more severe, and it certainly wouldn't have come out right.

Lets say that the camera shake was identical throughout the focal ranges - if this were the case, then IS would offer identical exposure options. But, look through a lens at 25mm handheld, then look through a 300mm handheld; you may be holding the camera braced the exact same way, but the camera shake is a lot more serious in the 300mm. Make sense?

I got 'anti-shake' on my original Minolta Maxxum 5D body, and it offered minor help, but the A700's 'SuperSteadyShot' was a HYOOOOJ improvement, I didn't think that stabilizer technology could have done as much as I've seen done with SSS.

I don't really stake a lot of importance on stabilizers though because its still good form to keep the proper shutter speeds for the exposure, but in a pinch, its mighty helpful. Shooting birds though, can't see much of a use for IS then - when are you shooting a bird where you want a shutter slower than 1/100th??

Btw the lens I've used are the 24-50f4, 50f1.7, and the 70-210f4, I'm much more inclined to use my SSS on the 50 and the 24-50 than on my 70-210.

[Sushigaijin]

Shooting birds though, can't see much of a use for IS then - when are you shooting a bird where you want a shutter slower than 1/100th??

Well, IS will most definitely help when you're shooting at 500mm at 1/100s

[Ron Kruger]

My Pentax K20D has a "mirror up" feature that can be used along with the internal IS to cut down on mirror slap, but you have to compose the picture by looking at the LCD, which is a bit awkward, and I’ve never tried it for wildlife photography, because good composition would be difficult. You have to keep in mind, I do almost all my wildlife photography hand-held. It might help on a tripod, where you could compose the picture first, then adjust to "mirror up," then snap the picture. I usually don't have enough time to mess with a tripod, let alone all that other stuff.
It would probably be great for a news photographer who had to reach above a crowd to get a shot of Obama, and it might be an aid to you guys using 600mm, where the extra time and movement won't spook the critter.
Nevertheless, if you are using a tripod, it is suggested that you turn the internal IS off.

[A.M.D.A.]

Well, IS will most definitely help when you're shooting at 500mm at 1/100s

Correct! :thumbsup:

One can't always have a shutter-speed at least equal the focal length number of the particular tele lens in use... especially on cloudy days... so IS sure can come in handy.

Nevertheless, if you are using a tripod, it is suggested that you turn the internal IS off.

I do so with my FZ7K, and it really does make a difference in picture sharpness. MEGA O.I.S. activated while on a tripod has caused me blurry shots, so I *try* to remember to turn it off when using a solid support.

[OldClicker]

I think that mirror lock up is the most useful with extreme close-up macros where the depth of field is only a few millimeters. It's not only the normal sideways/up-down camera shake that gets you; it's the forward-backward movement. - TF

[Ron Kruger]

Here's another point about IS that I'm discovering, at last as far as Pentax's in-camera technology is concerned. (I believe the in-lens technology that Canon and others use is different than the in-camera technology that Pentax and others use.)
During the past six months, I've done a lot of wildlife photography with a 200mm f/2.8, and I've relied on IS for all of it, because I've shot everyhing hand-held and I was so pleased with early results during low-light conditions. I guess I figured if it was good for low light, it was good for brighter conditions and faster shutter speeds as well.
Lately, however, I've been experimenting with a monopod for the same shots, with the IS off, and I have noticed a slight increase in image sharpness, even at shutter speeds of 1/500.
My mistake, I believe, was becoming too dependent upon IS, and I plan now to use it only in hand-held situations where my shutter speed is at or below the focal length (the old rule).

[A.M.D.A.]

Here's another point about IS that I'm discovering, at last as far as Pentax's in-camera technology is concerned. (I believe the in-lens technology that Canon and others use is different than the in-camera technology that Pentax and others use.)
During the past six months, I've done a lot of wildlife photography with a 200mm f/2.8, and I've relied on IS for all of it, because I've shot everyhing hand-held and I was so pleased with early results during low-light conditions. I guess I figured if it was good for low light, it was good for brighter conditions and faster shutter speeds as well.
Lately, however, I've been experimenting with a monopod for the same shots, with the IS off, and I have noticed a slight increase in image sharpness, even at shutter speeds of 1/500.

I've had the same experience with my FZ7K's MEGA O.I.S., which I believe is in-lens technology.

[Ron Kruger]

Even though the IS technology is different, according to what you and CanonBob also has said, the results and uses seem similar between in-camera and in-lens IS. To put it in simple terms, I believe IS is a tool that is like adding three f-stops, or three shutter speed settings to hand-held conditions. It can get good shots hand held that without it are highly unlikely. But at higher shutter speeds, or when using a tripod, where IS is not really needed, it not only doesn't add anything, it detracts slightly. It's one of the many tools or features modern cameras contain, but it is designed and dedicated to specific applications. It's not the holy grail of good photography.
Having said that, a great deal of my photography is during low-light or fading light conditions, and most of it is hand held, so I sure wouldn't want to be without it.