I.S. Question
Author
Discussion

dr_gn

Original Poster:

16,956 posts

213 months

Wednesday 13th July 2011
quotequote all
Apologies if this has been done to death:

For tripod shots, is I.S. better left on, or switched off?

I heard that there can be some residual movement via. the I.S. system when the camera is rigidly mounted.

I'm guessing this might be a can of worms question...

paul911

2,771 posts

262 months

Wednesday 13th July 2011
quotequote all
IS off on a tripod. And off when resting on any structure, like leaning on a bird hide windowsill, taking shots of the one and only time I captured a kingfisher. Not one pic was acceptable. frown

dr_gn

Original Poster:

16,956 posts

213 months

Wednesday 13th July 2011
quotequote all
paul911 said:
IS off on a tripod. And off when resting on any structure, like leaning on a bird hide windowsill, taking shots of the one and only time I captured a kingfisher. Not one pic was acceptable. frown
So it makes a significant difference...

What's the theory?

paul911

2,771 posts

262 months

Wednesday 13th July 2011
quotequote all
No idea how its works, but very clever stuff. Would be interested to hear how too.

Edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization

Luke.

11,996 posts

279 months

Wednesday 13th July 2011
quotequote all
Doesn't the IS over compensate when it's on a tripod?

ian in lancs

3,853 posts

227 months

Wednesday 13th July 2011
quotequote all
I think the theory is IS / VR hunts to determine whether image can be sharper; not sure that's how it works though. I believe it takes input from motion sensors ('G' transducers) and shifts a lens element/group accordingly.

There is also a camp that turns it off when used in conjunction with studio flash - i've tried both and i'm not convinced.

dr_gn

Original Poster:

16,956 posts

213 months

Wednesday 13th July 2011
quotequote all
Must admit I've used my camera on a tripod loads of times without turning IS off, and the results look OK; certainly not a disaster.

andy-xr

13,204 posts

233 months

Wednesday 13th July 2011
quotequote all
ian in lancs said:
There is also a camp that turns it off when used in conjunction with studio flash - i've tried both and i'm not convinced.
Same, tried on and off on a 70-300 VR and didnt notice any difference other than battery life

Simpo Two

92,709 posts

294 months

Wednesday 13th July 2011
quotequote all
Back to basics... what is IS/VR for? IS/VR helps to mitigate the effects of camera movement. If you put the camera on a tripod it shouldn't move. Therefore IS/VR is redundant.

dr_gn

Original Poster:

16,956 posts

213 months

Wednesday 13th July 2011
quotequote all
Simpo Two said:
Back to basics... what is IS/VR for? IS/VR helps to mitigate the effects of camera movement. If you put the camera on a tripod it shouldn't move. Therefore IS/VR is redundant.
It's redundant, yes, but should it be disabled is the question. There's a difference between something being activated, but having no effect on the results, and something being activated and working against you.

ian in lancs

3,853 posts

227 months

Wednesday 13th July 2011
quotequote all
This is quite a reasonable review and confirms my thoughts

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/image-stabilizatio...

paul911

2,771 posts

262 months

Wednesday 13th July 2011
quotequote all
I believe some lenses will auto detect when they are on a tripod and automatically disable IS. But if you are using a tripod then switch IS off.

Simpo Two

92,709 posts

294 months

Wednesday 13th July 2011
quotequote all
dr_gn said:
It's redundant, yes, but should it be disabled is the question. There's a difference between something being activated, but having no effect on the results, and something being activated and working against you.
I would say that if it cannot improve the result, but possibly do it harm, turn it off.

dr_gn

Original Poster:

16,956 posts

213 months

Wednesday 13th July 2011
quotequote all
Simpo Two said:
dr_gn said:
It's redundant, yes, but should it be disabled is the question. There's a difference between something being activated, but having no effect on the results, and something being activated and working against you.
I would say that if it cannot improve the result, but possibly do it harm, turn it off.
That's what I assumed.

I wonder if it's a process that constantly 'adds' vibration then subtracts the same amount (to reduce inertial effects) plus whatever real time shake that's been detected . Sort of like a moving version of an unsharp mask...but then again not really hehe

Bah. I'll just turn it off in future.

Ed_P

701 posts

298 months

Wednesday 13th July 2011
quotequote all
ian in lancs said:
This is quite a reasonable review and confirms my thoughts

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/image-stabilizatio...
I thought that with Ken Rockwell, he turns his IS off and the rest of the world adjusts itself to compensate for any camera shake. (Thought we hadn't had a Rockwellism for a while ...)

Simpo Two

92,709 posts

294 months

Wednesday 13th July 2011
quotequote all
Ed_P said:
I thought that with Ken Rockwell, he turns his IS off and the rest of the world adjusts itself to compensate for any camera shake.
Not needed - Ken has carbon fibre gyro-stabilised arms for perfect steadiness in all conditions...