Wide Angle IS makes sense...

DHB wrote:

> While I agree that IS/VR can be helpful even with wide angles
> lenses, I can't help but wonder why you found it needed in your
> example shot.

At 24mm on an FF sensor IS is nothing more than a "feel good" placebo.

> Why not shoot this shot with a tripod, longer shutter speed &
> a lower ISO? People generally won't remain still long enough for such
> a shot in relatively low lighting situations where both a high ISO & a
> larger f-stop may be required. However in this example I think you
> might have been able to captured the warm ambiance of this space
> without any need of an IS/VR lens & with a far cleaner picture.

Exactly! He should have shot this handheld with IS off and using good
technique and I'll bet it would have been razor sharp.

> Don't misunderstand me, it's a nice picture but I fail to see
> how it makes a case for the need of IS/VR @ wide angle or otherwise!

VR/IS on focal lengths of 50mm and lower are nothing more than marketing
gimmicks since they add absolutely no real world benefits.







Rita

Jones wrote:
> Agreed, but do you take a tripod with you everywhere you go?

I never carry one.

> So, if you don't have a tripod and find in yourself in such a
> situation you can still get the shot. BTW, I think he could have
> gone even lower that 1/10 with IS.

No tripod needed. There's no substitute for good technique. He
underutilized the best feature of his lens on this shot, the on/off switch.
This is a perfect example of where he can prove to himself that he can do a
better job with IS off.







Rita

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:48:55 +0100, "Jones" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>Agreed, but do you take a tripod with you everywhere you go?
>

No I don't & that can should be obvious in many of the
examples pictures I posted a link to. The original poster also stated
that he was typing his original post in the very same space that he
photographed so it seems reasonable that he probably could have come
back with a tripod.

>So, if you don't have a tripod and find in yourself in such a situation you
>can still get the shot.

Maybe, it depends on the situation & the camera gear that you
have with you @ the time you are inspired to take a given picture. It
also depends on how much effort you wish to put into getting the
picture that you want. As stated the 1's I took were largely
recreational & very informal.

>BTW, I think he could have gone even lower that
>1/10 with IS.

Agreed. It is possible for people with steady hands, good
technique & an IS/VR lens @ this focal length could get a usably
stable shot without a tripod. This hypothetical individual may
however not be me or at least not with consistency.

For the record I own a Canon 300D & a 30D including the
following 3 Canon IS lenses:

17-85mm, 28-135mm & most recently the 70-300mm & yes they are
addictive but I also have a very inexpensive 50mm f1.8 mkII lens which
I often use when in low light situations with either DSLR.

These are not "L" glass quality lenses but with a bit of
effort they can yield quality results. This being stated for "my
needs & standards", yours other other's "needs & standards" may differ
considerably.
>
>
>"DHB" <yoda2k@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:e1gdf2hipsq9j6qrm814tvkjfn25jg0dsl@4ax.com.. .
>>
>> Why not shoot this shot with a tripod, longer shutter speed &
>> a lower ISO?
>
I probably should have said if you have that option open to
you with little added effort required, why not do the above?

Thanks for your input, we are for the most part in agreement.
For me, the thing I enjoy the most is pushing @ the limits, both my
limits & that of my equipment. So if I find myself in need of a
tripod when I don't have 1 with me, I look around for anything I can
use in it's place. Often I will balance a camera on the top of a
glass, a table, a shelf, a railing or whatever I find around me. Yes
I always use the wrist or neck strap too just in case my balancing act
fails. This way I not only save the camera but also don't risk
dropping it on somebody's head or whatever.

Since I usually have a P&S with me, that's why I use it the
most unless I know I'm going to be attending an event where I will
need a DSLR & it's lenses.

Respectfully, DHB


"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

DHB wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 02:04:01 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>> The question of IS/VR usefulness still seems to come up a lot.
>> -Especially questions about why anyone would care to have IS at wide
>> angle. Here's an example of a room that was VERY dimly lit (despite
>> the brighter look due to purposeful exposure). This is hand-held at
>> 24mm (REAL 24mm, shot on the full frame 5D) at f5.6 and 1/10th
>> second, using the 24-105 f4 IS:
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/66057618/original
>>
>> For interiors where you don't want a nasty blast of flash, or in
>> places where tripods & flash are forbidden, you really do benefit.
>> This would be a completely usable shot. This isn't an extreme
>> example, but it is well beyond the typical hand-held "guidelines..."
>>
>> I really should try it even slower just for kicks, but this was the
>> shot I took because it was the aperture I wanted.
>>
>> BTW--This is the spot I'm sitting in as I type this...
>> :)
>> -Mark²
>
> While I agree that IS/VR can be helpful even with wide angles
> lenses, I can't help but wonder why you found it needed in your
> example shot.
>
> Why not shoot this shot with a tripod, longer shutter speed &
> a lower ISO?

I am a firm believer in the use of tripods, but this shot was merely taken
and posted to demonstrate use of IS in low-light, and at wide angle. Of
course I could shoot using a tripod in my own home, but I shot my own office
(again) only to demonstrate. In many settings and constraints, people often
have neither the time nor the permission to use one (client's homes with
limited time, museums, interiors where tripods are clumsy, etc.). There are
many scenarios where you like to have options.


>People generally won't remain still long enough for such
> a shot in relatively low lighting situations where both a high ISO & a
> larger f-stop may be required. However in this example I think you
> might have been able to captured the warm ambiance of this space
> without any need of an IS/VR lens & with a far cleaner picture.

Ya, no kidding.
See above.
:)

> Don't misunderstand me, it's a nice picture but I fail to see
> how it makes a case for the need of IS/VR @ wide angle or otherwise!

See above.

> Here is a link to a few admittedly boring & mediocre (at best)
> low light pictures.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/dhb_2005/flashless
>
> All indoor shots were taken without a flash or a tripod, most
> if not all were done using the camera's 2 second self timer to avoid
> camera shake. All indoor shots were taken with the camera propped up
> on whatever was available @ the time in order to get the shot. Also
> if I recall correctly, all but 1 are 100% unedited & posted with the
> option to view them @ the camera's full resolution. They were all
> taken with a canon P&S camera with "dark frame subtraction" NR that
> kicks in on any exposure longer than 1.3 seconds. Most if not all,
> are from 2MP P&S cameras.
>
> The main reason for taking these shots was simply to practice
> judging the best camera settings required to get usable low light
> shots in a variety of low light situations & as always, an excuse to
> use a digital camera to have a bit of added fun.
>
> Best regards & thanks for sharing some of your photography.
>
> Respectfully, DHB

This image wasn't meant to impress.
Again, it was merely shot to demonstrate that wide angle IS can be useful.
IS is designed for hand-held shooting, first and foremost. If you ALWAYS
plan to have access to, and use a tripod, then IS isn't for you. As for
me...I carry and use a very nice tripod, and prefer to use it if I plan to
enlarge, or if I simply have the time. In countless other settings and
situations, I am extremely glad that I have the IS option. Try setting up a
tripod inside a public vehicle, or while climbing a tree, or scaling a
cliff, or fording a river, or rafting a river, or flying a single engine
plane, or while ballooning, or boating, or any number of other scenarios
where IS is a huge and boon. Or...simply shooting interiors where tripods
are not handy. You've been distracted by my example shot, and missed the
point, I'm afraid.

-Mark²

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

DHB wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:48:55 +0100, "Jones" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> Agreed, but do you take a tripod with you everywhere you go?
>>
>
> No I don't & that can should be obvious in many of the
> examples pictures I posted a link to. The original poster also stated
> that he was typing his original post in the very same space that he
> photographed so it seems reasonable that he probably could have come
> back with a tripod.

Look... I shot that ONLY to examine IS.
If I simply wanted the best possible photo of my office, I'd have used a
tripod and ISO 100 or ISO 50.
Save'?

-Mark²

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
> DHB wrote:
>
>> While I agree that IS/VR can be helpful even with wide angles
>> lenses, I can't help but wonder why you found it needed in your
>> example shot.
>
> At 24mm on an FF sensor IS is nothing more than a "feel good" placebo.
>
>> Why not shoot this shot with a tripod, longer shutter speed &
>> a lower ISO? People generally won't remain still long enough for
>> such a shot in relatively low lighting situations where both a high
>> ISO & a larger f-stop may be required. However in this example I
>> think you might have been able to captured the warm ambiance of this
>> space without any need of an IS/VR lens & with a far cleaner picture.
>
> Exactly! He should have shot this handheld with IS off and using good
> technique and I'll bet it would have been razor sharp.

You've said that at least three times now, and you're beginning to sound
rather obsessive about it.
Perhaps if you say it 5 more times, the world will agree with you.
:)

>
>> Don't misunderstand me, it's a nice picture but I fail to see
>> how it makes a case for the need of IS/VR @ wide angle or otherwise!
>
> VR/IS on focal lengths of 50mm and lower are nothing more than
> marketing gimmicks since they add absolutely no real world benefits.

You're now bordering on silliness. Clearly you have little to no experience
with IS.
-But I won't try to convince you.
I'm sure you're hand-holding technique is nearly as good as mine... :)
....but I see little value in your quest to somehow imply that hand-holding
without IS is somehow steadier. Good for you. I haven't found that to be
the case. To each their own.
--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

½ Confused wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 02:04:01 -0700
> In message <ZBxJg.1840$nL2.1088@fed1read02>
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>> The question of IS/VR usefulness still seems to come up a lot.
>> -Especially questions about why anyone would care to have IS at wide
>> angle. Here's an example of a room that was VERY dimly lit (despite
>> the brighter look due to purposeful exposure). This is hand-held at
>> 24mm (REAL 24mm, shot on the full frame 5D) at f5.6 and 1/10th
>> second, using the 24-105 f4 IS:
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/66057618/original
>> ...
>
> The older I get the more I understand the term "bitch slap"... heh.
>
> And no, I haven't ordered one from B&H yet, but it's only a matter of
> time...

Hey Jeff,

I'm afraid *I* am now 1/2 confused...
:)
What the heck are you talkin' 'bout??

-You gonna order a 5D? A 24-105? A new office??
:)

Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Some people just don't get it, do they?

The room looks nice though.

--
Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:14PJg.1880$nL2.1499@fed1read02...

: This image wasn't meant to impress.

Joan wrote:
> Some people just don't get it, do they?
>
> The room looks nice though.

:)
Thanks.
It's actually a pretty small room...only about 12' x 10 or 11'.
When the furniture was delivered, the movers thought I was nuts because it
appeared (to them) that it would never all fit. But once I set it up
(according to my careful pre-measurements), the room actually seemed bigger
than ever. Don't be fooled by the printer. That's the Epson 4000, and it's
pretty huge. -Otherwise, that would have to be one dinky little table. :)


>
>
>> This image wasn't meant to impress.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

I'm not fooled by that printer. I have an Epson 1200 (A3) which would
be dwarfed by yours.

What's the stuff to the right of the computer?

--
Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:RtPJg.1892$nL2.752@fed1read02...
:
::)
: Thanks.
: It's actually a pretty small room...only about 12' x 10 or 11'.
: When the furniture was delivered, the movers thought I was nuts
because it
: appeared (to them) that it would never all fit. But once I set it
up
: (according to my careful pre-measurements), the room actually seemed
bigger
: than ever. Don't be fooled by the printer. That's the Epson 4000,
and it's
: pretty huge. -Otherwise, that would have to be one dinky little
table. :)
:
: