Wide Angle IS makes sense...

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

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

Mark² (lowest even number here) 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
>
> --
> Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
> www.pbase.com/markuson

Hi Mark²,

Nice office

I agree with you that IS is rarely needed.

The truth is that most (reasonably healthy) people can train themselves
to hold a camera still enough to shoot at slow speeds. My dad taught me
that as long as the duration fraction was smaller than the focal length
you were OK, i.e. with a 28mm lens shoot at 1/30th or less. But by
relaxing muscles and controlling breathing however, I recon to be able
to shoot without visible camera shake much slower - down to about 1/4
with a 28mm focal length, and I'm sure that I'm not unique or even
brilliantly talented in being able to do so.

One of the things I like most about digital photography is the ability
to set the white balance to cater for quite extreme light conditions,
e.g. yellow tungsten light. I have found this particularly useful
photographing babies (where flash should not be used), by just turning
on as many tungsten lights as I can find. It's also great for desktop
macro shots with a couple of dirt-cheap desk lamps. Tungsten light
also has a soft pleasing quality that enhances portraits, and gives
interior shots (like your office) a warm cosy feel.

I take you are you using a Canon EOS 5D rather than a Minolta Dynax 5D
which has anti-shake built in to the body.

Regards,

Scot.K.

SkyRaider707 wrote:

> I agree with you that IS is rarely needed.
>
> The truth is that most (reasonably healthy) people can train
> themselves to hold a camera still enough to shoot at slow speeds. My
> dad taught me that as long as the duration fraction was smaller than
> the focal length you were OK, i.e. with a 28mm lens shoot at 1/30th
> or less. But by relaxing muscles and controlling breathing however,
> I recon to be able to shoot without visible camera shake much slower
> - down to about 1/4 with a 28mm focal length, and I'm sure that I'm
> not unique or even brilliantly talented in being able to do so.

At 24mm and 1/10th second I'm confident that you could have shot that
handheld with IS of and get equal results provided you used reasonably good
technique. Where's the comparison shot with IS off?







Rita

Mark² 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

I think there's a bug in the text (or Exif?).

That doesn't look like a shot taken with a ...

(35mm equivalent: 105mm)

lens.

BugBear

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? 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.

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!

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


"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

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:14:04 +0100, bugbear wrote:

> I think there's a bug in the text (or Exif?).
>
> That doesn't look like a shot taken with a ...
>
> (35mm equivalent: 105mm)

Well sure - it's just a typo. With a FF sensor, the 35mm
equivalent is the same as the actual focal length. As it was stated
in several places that the fl was 24mm, the text on the web page
should have been:

> 1/10s f/5.6 at 24.0mm (35mm equivalent: 24mm) iso1600

This shot, however, doesn't make a good case for paying more to
get an IS lens, as a tripod would have made it easier to get a
better shot. If the lens won't be used at least occasionally where
IS could help and the use of a tripod would be impractical, then the
lens is just a gadget seeker's status symbol.

>> 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
>
> I think there's a bug in the text (or Exif?).
>
> That doesn't look like a shot taken with a ...
>
> (35mm equivalent: 105mm)
>
> lens.

I can't speak for pbase's software but I find that the '35mm
equivalent' reported by jhead is often wildly wrong.

For example:

File name : 08-06/IMG_3781.JPG
File size : 82589 bytes
File date : 2006:08:06 10:41:41
Camera make : Canon
Camera model : Canon EOS 350D DIGITAL
Date/Time : 2006:08:06 13:10:21
Resolution : 400 x 600
Flash used : No
Focal length : 17.0mm (35mm equivalent: 159mm)
CCD width : 3.85mm
Exposure time: 0.0050 s (1/200)
Aperture : f/16.0
ISO equiv. : 800
Exposure bias: 1.00
Whitebalance : Auto
Exposure : aperture priority (semi-auto)

1.6*17*3456/600=156.672; the image is slightly cropped so scaling
misinterpreted as sensor crop is sufficient to explain the error in
this particular case.

I've seen this with output from both Lightroom and Canon DPP, so I'm
guessing that in this example it's jhead being stupid.

--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

bugbear wrote:
> Mark² 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
>
> I think there's a bug in the text (or Exif?).
>
> That doesn't look like a shot taken with a ...
>
> (35mm equivalent: 105mm)

Yep. That's some sort of automated Pbase error.


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

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

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.


"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?

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...

Jeff