Use IS or not use IS

[hb1944]

What are the opinions about using Image Stabilization when shooting from a tripod . I am using a 500mm f/4 lens and am not always happy with the detail I get.

[cozmocha]

Most say don't use IS with a tripod. If you have it still and turn on the IS you can actually see the camera move sometimes. But if your lens has a panning IS mode is might be helpful for following action.

[CaraRose]

Just curious, anyone know what's best for a monopod?

[Loupey]

Just curious, anyone know what's best for a monopod?

I've always used IS when monopod-mounted - no problems.

Keep in mind that the 300mm f/4L IS uses an older generation IS that does NOT work on a sturdy tripod. But I've never had it misbehave on a monopod.

[Loupey]

Here's a quick example of the 500mm f/4L IS with the IS on (mode 1) and on a tripod I shot on Friday.

First image is uncropped, the second image is at 100% BEFORE any sharpening or any noise reduction. EXIF data included.

Seriously, I NEVER turn off the IS and I have NEVER used mode 2 - even when panning flying birds and bugs.

[Loupey]

Another example. This time hand-held (actually resting on the ground).

Again, 500mm f/4L IS on Mode 1 IS - first image is uncropped, the second image is at 100% BEFORE any sharpening or any noise reduction. EXIF data included.

I've said it before, I think IS is the best thing since sliced bread

[almo]

IS on always. Never turn it off. Monopod, tripod, me-pod, IS is always on.

BTW: You rock Loupey!

[freygr]

What are the opinions about using Image Stabilization when shooting from a tripod . I am using a 500mm f/4 lens and am not always happy with the detail I get.

if you are shooting wide open even with a subject 100 feet away you will see the Depth of Field, close and far objects out of focus. With normal lens this would not be a problem with the subject 100 feet away.

[OldClicker]

if you are shooting wide open even with a subject 100 feet away you will see the Depth of Field, close and far objects out of focus. With normal lens this would not be a problem with the subject 100 feet away.

I'm confused as to what you are saying. Use a shorter focal length at the same distance and crop to get the same field of view? - TF

[freygr]

I'm confused as to what you are saying. Use a shorter focal length at the same distance and crop to get the same field of view? - TF

What I'm saying is with a long lens let say 200mm at 50 feet at F5.6 in focus range is near 43.7 to far 49.2 feet but with 50mm lens near 15.7 to inf feet is in focus. These numbers are based on the field of view on 35mm full frame film, as DOF is dependent on the field of view as the determining factor.

[OldClicker]

What I'm saying is with a long lens let say 200mm at 50 feet at F5.6 in focus range is near 43.7 to far 49.2 feet but with 50mm lens near 15.7 to inf feet is in focus. These numbers are based on the field of view on 35mm full frame film, as DOF is dependent on the field of view as the determining factor.

I think you have a typo on your exact numbers, but I get what you are saying. (Serious front focus problem on that 200mm lens. )

But if you move close eneough with the 50mm to get the same field of view (same image), the DoF would be the same as with the 200mm, correct? So, in the end, the DoF, for the same image on the same camera, is dependent only on the Aperture.

TF

[Loupey]

...But if you move close eneough with the 50mm to get the same field of view (same image), the DoF would be the same as with the 200mm, correct? So, in the end, the DoF, for the same image on the same camera, is dependent only on the Aperture.

I think you mean move close enough to get the same image magnification (not field of view). Of course the perspective changes in the process and not typically feasible out in the field

[OldClicker]

I think you mean move close enough to get the same image magnification (not field of view).

Which would typically mean that your in-focus subject (i.e. bird filling the frame) is the same size though the wider angle lens would show more background, correct? - TF

[freygr]

I think you have a typo on your exact numbers, but I get what you are saying. (Serious front focus problem on that 200mm lens. )

But if you move close eneough with the 50mm to get the same field of view (same image), the DoF would be the same as with the 200mm, correct? So, in the end, the DoF, for the same image on the same camera, is dependent only on the Aperture.

TF

There is not any typo, The numbers came out of the DOF calculator program. The Palm OS version the default lens length only goes up to 200mm. But at F5.6 the 200mm focal length lens is close to the average F stop unless yo have purchased a fast lens $$$$$.

200 mm lens on a 35 mm full frame film camera (note the ranges have been rounded except the f32)
f 4 Subject @50 feet near 48.5 to far 53 feet
f 11 subject @50 feet near 46 to far 60 feet
f 32 subject @50 feet near37.1 to far 79.8 feet

After changing the default settings dropping a focal length and adding a 500mm lens and setting the image size to Digital from 35mm Film here are the calculations for the 500mm lens.
And a 500mm lens on a digital subject at 50 feet set at F5.6 has DOF of .3 feet (3.6 inches) and at 100 feet the range is now 1.7 feet.

[OldClicker]

There is not any typo, The numbers came out of the DOF calculator program. The Palm OS version the default lens length only goes up to 200mm. But at F5.6 the 200mm focal length lens is close to the average F stop unless yo have purchased a fast lens $$$$$.

200 mm lens on a 35 mm full frame film camera (note the ranges have been rounded except the f32)
f 4 Subject @50 feet near 48.5 to far 53 feet
f 11 subject @50 feet near 46 to far 60 feet
f 32 subject @50 feet near37.1 to far 79.8 feet

After changing the default settings dropping a focal length and adding a 500mm lens and setting the image size to Digital from 35mm Film here are the calculations for the 500mm lens.
And a 500mm lens on a digital subject at 50 feet set at F5.6 has DOF of .3 feet (3.6 inches) and at 100 feet the range is now 1.7 feet.

Except in your previous example, the 'far' in focus at 50 feet is less than 50 feet. The subject would never be in focus.

"...200mm at 50 feet at F5.6 in focus range is near 43.7 to far 49.2 feet..."

TF

[freygr]

Except in your previous example, the 'far' in focus at 50 feet is less than 50 feet. The subject would never be in focus.

"...200mm at 50 feet at F5.6 in focus range is near 43.7 to far 49.2 feet..."

TF

Opps - I did not check - but the DOF range is correct 5.5 feet of DOF as I was off on the focus point the range could a few per cent off.

[mjs1973]

There is not any typo, The numbers came out of the DOF calculator program. The Palm OS version the default lens length only goes up to 200mm. But at F5.6 the 200mm focal length lens is close to the average F stop unless yo have purchased a fast lens $$$$$.

200 mm lens on a 35 mm full frame film camera (note the ranges have been rounded except the f32)
f 4 Subject @50 feet near 48.5 to far 53 feet
f 11 subject @50 feet near 46 to far 60 feet
f 32 subject @50 feet near37.1 to far 79.8 feet

After changing the default settings dropping a focal length and adding a 500mm lens and setting the image size to Digital from 35mm Film here are the calculations for the 500mm lens.
And a 500mm lens on a digital subject at 50 feet set at F5.6 has DOF of .3 feet (3.6 inches) and at 100 feet the range is now 1.7 feet.

Maybe I'm missing something, but what does this have to do with the original question about using IS or not? Are you suggesting that the OP's lack of detail is because of a shallow DOF?

[freygr]

Maybe I'm missing something, but what does this have to do with the original question about using IS or not? Are you suggesting that the OP's lack of detail is because of a shallow DOF?

The thing is expectation of edge to edge sharpness of the image may be unreallistic is the point I was trying to make. And if the AF focused on an object were the subject is outside the lens's DOF. That is why I almost always use manual focus with micro photography, and also with birding, as in both cases the subject has to be in focus do to the shallow DOF in both cases..

[mjs1973]

If the AF focused on an object were the subject is outside the lens's DOF. That is why I almost always use manual focus with micro photography, and also with birding, as in both cases the subject has to be in focus do to the shallow DOF in both cases..

Yes, I understand this but I still don't see what this has to do with the question of whether or not to use IS.

[Loupey]

What I'm saying is with a long lens let say 200mm at 50 feet at F5.6 in focus range is near 43.7 to far 49.2 feet but with 50mm lens near 15.7 to inf feet is in focus. These numbers are based on the field of view on 35mm full frame film, as DOF is dependent on the field of view as the determining factor.

If you're suggesting that cropping an image to get the "apparent" telephoto, then I agree that the DOF would be vastly different as long as the camera-to-subject distance remains unchanged.

But we can't always crop that much without serious image degradation. Besides, a shallow DOF is often advantageous.

[Greg McCary]

If your off the tripod leave it on. I don't think IS was meat for really long exposures. More than a second, if you can hold it that steady at a second that is.

[Loupey]

What are the opinions about using Image Stabilization when shooting from a tripod . I am using a 500mm f/4 lens and am not always happy with the detail I get.

The 500mm f/4L IS is a fantastically sharp lens and the IS is tremendously helpful. I never turn the IS off - even on a tripod. The newer generation IS recognizes when it is tripod-mounted and operates accordingly. So handheld, monopod mounted, and tripod mounted - I aways leave it on.

[gryphonslair99]

What are the opinions about using Image Stabilization when shooting from a tripod . I am using a 500mm f/4 lens and am not always happy with the detail I get.

Kind of depends on the whole setup. A tripod isn't just a tripod. Are you using a tripod that will actually support your gear or making do with what ever you had? My long glass tripod will support over 3 times the weight of my heaviest gear. 56 lbs of support. It's very stable with 14 lbs of camera and lens on it.

By detail, are you referring to sharpness? If so, what is the issue and what technique are you currently using. A photo example would be good in this instance.

IS is just a tool. It was designed to serve a function. Think of it like driving a car. You car is equipped with a jack in case you have a tire issue. Do you need the jack when driving down the highway at 70 mph. Nope, but you still have it. Tire goes flat (low light hand held shooting) do you need/use that jack? Yep that is what it is there for.

Now your driving down the highway with a load in the trunk. Say a crate of eggs and a large heavy item that can slide around. You can stop the slide by putting the jack against the heavy item above the crate of eggs against the inner wall of the trunk and extending the jack out to hold that heavy object in place, thus preventing that heavy object from sliding and crushing that case of eggs. The Jack wasn't made for that, but it served a purpose by it's very nature.

First thing you have to do is determine what is causing the issue. Equipment or user error. If the tripod is not sturdy then maybe, just maybe IS can help steady the gear on it like it was in your hands.

On the other hand if it is not equipment related but user related, then IS will probably do nothing but eat into battery life and possibly cause issues instead of solving them.

[Chris350]

I recently read an article suggesting that at high shutter speeds IS/VR is actually detrimental. The theory advanced was that IS is not acting evenly across the entire image as the shutter fires, based on the idea that the native frequency of the IS system as it moves is lower than the shutter release. I'll find it and post a link to it here later I have to fly right now, lap to p is about to go to sleep.....


Here's the link. http://www.bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm It may not be relevant since I don;t know if IS and VR technologies are implemented in a similar manner.