Image Stabilization - Body or Lens?

[marlof]

I have IS in my camera body (Olympus E-3). I like the fact that all my lenses now can have IS, even when they say in body IS is a little less effective than in lens IS. But actually, I try to use IS as little as possible, and keep training myself in trying to handhold at the slowest possible speed. And use a good tripod / ball head combination when possible, which still beats IS in my opinion.

[marlof]

I have IS in my camera body (Olympus E-3). I like the fact that all my lenses now can have IS, even when they say in body IS is a little less effective than in lens IS. But actually, I try to use IS as little as possible, and keep training myself in trying to handhold at the slowest possible speed. And use a good tripod / ball head combination when possible, which still beats IS in my opinion.

[Jason Dunn]

Originally Posted by Marlof Bregonje

But actually, I try to use IS as little as possible, and keep training myself in trying to handhold at the slowest possible speed.

I definitely understand about trying to train yourself to handhold better, it's something I really need to work on, but do you actually turn IS off? Doesn't it just help a little more?

[Vincent Ferrari]

Originally Posted by Marlof Bregonje

I have IS in my camera body (Olympus E-3). I like the fact that all my lenses now can have IS, even when they say in body IS is a little less effective than in lens IS. But actually, I try to use IS as little as possible, and keep training myself in trying to handhold at the slowest possible speed. And use a good tripod / ball head combination when possible, which still beats IS in my opinion.

I wish it was just a training / learning thing. Unfortunately for me, it isn't. I don't have the steadiest hands (I guess I inherited that from my father) so no matter how "right" I frame stuff and set aperture and shutter, it still could be an issue. Having IS gives me just enough where I don't have to compensate for it and makes my overall experience that much better.

Secondly, if you shoot a lot of street or lowlight indoors stuff (functions, get togethers, etc), tripods don't work. You're right that they solve the problem, but they aren't always practical.

[Jason Dunn]

Originally Posted by Vincent Ferrari

Secondly, if you shoot a lot of street or lowlight indoors stuff (functions, get togethers, etc), tripods don't work. You're right that they solve the problem, but they aren't always practical.

Indeed. Tripods are GREAT when you can use them, but they tend to only work well with landscapes and posed portraits - pretty much everything else is too "live" for tripods. I bought a monopod for my video camera, it works well, I might try it with my DSLR...

[ptyork]

Originally Posted by Jason Dunn

100% agreed. I've never seen an electronic viewfinder that I've liked the look of. It's fine for point and shoot stuff - I used to moan about P&S cameras that didn't have a viewfinder, but I got over that - but when I'm shooting with a DSLR, I want to see what the lens sees...

Okay, I can buy into the quality of the LCD being an issue but "seeing what the lens sees" is flawed logic. What you should care about (IMHO) is what the sensor "sees." This is what is getting translated into your image. Assume a very high quality/high resolution/high density/high color LCD/OLED/whatever screen for the viewfinder which closely mimics the real world (don't think about those crappy things they put in camcorder viewfinders or even what is on the back of most current P&S cameras but rather something akin to what you have on your desktop shrunk down with higher density). If you can toss out your bias against the viewfinder screen, then consider the benefits. In addition to what I first mentioned, you'd no longer have to worry about how lighting conditions would affect the photo--you'd SEE how it affects it. The camera would sample the image constantly using the parameters that you specify (ISO, "shutter" speed, aperture, etc.) and render a live view of exactly what will be captured when you press the shutter release. Heck, it could even try to simulate a flash (obviously difficult). Still, it just seems logical to me.

Perhaps it just needs to be a different product line...I know there are going to be holdouts for at least a generation that will never give up the true optical-TTL view. I'm looking for more than the Samsung Pro 815 and other super zooms though--something that offers the enhanced features of P&S with the upgraded electronics, sensors, optics, and manual controls of the DSLR. I guess in some ways a super zoom with a great viewfinder, bigger sensor, and interchangeable lenses.

Ahh, maybe it's just too small of a market niche, but it seems like that huge population of folks that get DSLRs simply for better lens options and higher quality pictures and keep them on full automatic would certainly be candidates...

[Jason Dunn]

Originally Posted by ptyork

Okay, I can buy into the quality of the LCD being an issue but "seeing what the lens sees" is flawed logic. What you should care about (IMHO) is what the sensor "sees."

In an ideal world, yes, the sensor is what matters most (because that's really what your picture is turning out like), but EVF technology has moved very slowly over the past few years and what you're talking about is purely theoretical - it would take some amazing advances to get a viewfinder that was truly close to real life. I don't see that happening for at least a decade or more - so we can continue this conversation then.

[Vincent Ferrari]

(marks calendar for that date)

[ptyork]

Originally Posted by Jason Dunn

I don't see that happening for at least a decade or more - so we can continue this conversation then.

Sure, they haven't shown up in CE-friendly forms, but look at some of the LCoS and D-ILA stuff with pixel densities in the 3000+ ppi range. I don't think we're a decade away. We just haven't had anyone turn these into miniature displays or EVF's--good to use proper terminology rather than "little LCD screen" :-). I definitely think we could see it happen in the near term; I'm far less confident that we will...

I'll mark my calendar as well.

[marlof]

Originally Posted by Jason Dunn

do you actually turn IS off? Doesn't it just help a little more?

What I meant: I don't have IS turned on by default. I want to control when I need some aid, and when I can do it by myself. I find this makes me more aware of technique, and it actually improves my results compared to when I lazily rely on IS.