In camera or in lens stabilsation.. a strange twist!

[arthurking83]

I've tried out those Canon IS binoculars and I have to say they are awesome.

i went into a camera store(where I got my 70-200 from) and was about to purchase some superzoom Nikon peepers(approx $400 or so) mainly for my son's use(he loves them).. but when I tried the Canon binoculars for nearly $1k(I fell over!) I thought it best to put them off for a while.. until I win 1st divvie in Tatts at least.

I'm more like Steve, I don't need OS for wide angle stuff, as I'm either on a tripod or at a decent shutter speed, and the level of detail doesn't have to be absolute either with a wide angle lens either.
But it'd be nice to have(Nikon's 16-35/4 VR lens sounds like a good proposition ).
occasionally I find myself at ground level just holding the camera in fresh air. As I'm physically unable to get to ground level myself, so I lean down and try to chance a shot. OS would be nice for those rare whimsical occasions, but it's not a deal breaker.

[arthurking83]

I just stumbled upon an interesting 'development'(that maybe about to happen soon).

*May be about to happen, because as yet, I haven't seen this particular lens available for purchase, so we have to wait an see**

Lens manufacturer in question is Sigma.

I just saw a news item on DPR where the Sigma 120-400OS is now available for both Sony and Pentax mounts. This lens is OS capable for Nikon and Canon(ie. non stabilised sensor manufacturers).

No big deal except that I followed the link to their impending 70-200/2.8 OS lens and I noted this particular bit of information.

From Sigma's 70-200/2.8 web page:

*When using the OS function of a lens with a camera which incorporates a stabilizer unit, please turn the camera’s stabilizer unit off.

where the 120-400, among other lenses, is simply not available with OS.. it seems that they've kept the OS system for the 70-200/2.8 OS lens for both the Sony and Pentax mounts.

An interesting development that could lead to interesting results.

3 possibly interesting conditions will be:

Lens OS on, Camera OS off
Lens OS off, Camera OS on
lens OS on, Camera OS on <- that's one I definitely would love to see the results of.

one other very uninteresting condition will also exist, and that's
Lens OS off, Camera OS off <- that one has me limp with boredom

What I'd liekto see is, can the lens do better than the camera, or vice versa, and can they both workin harmony for even better results(Sigma doesn't seem to think so, and I'd expect them to be right.. or they'd advertise the fact in glowing red marketing mania.. 8 stops of optical stabilisation would be marketing nirvana for a lens manufacturer.

Are there any other OS lenses available, that aren't automatically disabled if mounted to an OS capable camera?

BTW I fell out of my chair(and am about to stumble into bed now as I'm pooped) when I read the MSRP of this 70-200/2.8 lens.. from Sigma! $2470!!! US!!!!

MSRP for the Nikon version is US $2399.95!!

apart from a very rare breed of lens(50/1.4), since when has a Sigma lens ever cost more than a Nikon lens of equivalent tech specs?

I think I've gone OT again with the price of this lens(which is just freaky!!) .. and to think I was ready to offload my Tammy for the sake of owning one of those!

[farmer_rob]

lens OS on, Camera OS on <- that's one I definitely would love to see the results of.

Only if you are into weird optical effects and OOF pictures .

Two unlinked control systems trying to correct for the same error might see one hunting the other, or fighting the other, or exaggerating rather than minimising the camera shake. You might even see something resembling moire patterns if the operating frequencies are just slightly different.

Obviously, sigma reckon their in-lens stabilisation is better than the camera's. However, the proof will be in the photos.

(AK, have you read Thom Hogan's recent rules for use of VR - it gives some quite interesting comments on the values and limitations of image stabilisation.)

[arthurking83]

Only if you are into weird optical effects and OOF pictures .....

Rob, you've been a member here for over two years now, and you still haven't realised I love the weird optical effects generated by weird camera lens combinations!

But of course you're right. I think unless it's designed by the manufacturer with specific programming in the CPU's so that camera OS unit knows what the lens OS unit is doing.. the results will be disastrous!

[farmer_rob]

Rob, you've been a member here for over two years now, and you still haven't realised I love the weird optical effects generated by weird camera lens combinations!

But of course you're right. I think unless it's designed by the manufacturer with specific programming in the CPU's so that camera OS unit knows what the lens OS unit is doing.. the results will be disastrous!

Why do you think the was there? I just though you like to have more control over the weird optical effects. Looking forward to the first pics from your upcoming camera/lens combo (the weirdness is just calling you, I know ) - or at least try it in a shop and bring the results back to the forum.

BTW, IMO it's actually more than just programming - control loops of this nature can be quite an engineering challenge, and it becomes more complex when you have two things you can control that have effects of similar magnitude.

[bigdazzler]

I havent read the whole thread .. but thought id add ... that I shot a handheld portrait yesterday at 135mm, 5.6, ISO200, 1/10th sec .... with Tamron 70-200 (non stabilised lens) and Sony in-body SSS switched on. The photo is as sharp as a tack Is that contribution in any way relevant to the thread ??

[arthurking83]

LOL! I haven't shot at that low shutter speed, but I do have a test shot with the Tammy too, at 1/30s 200mm and f/4(from memory.. I may have to dig out the old file stored in my archives now.. not on the PC proper).

Of course you'd know that the Tammy is not stabilised and neither is the D300!

It can always be done once you learn the techniques and the patience to do it.

But I just found the impending technical challenge(the new siggy lens) and Sony's decision(with the NEX) to be interesting topics for speculation and commentary.

[bigdazzler]

I know mate .. I was just having a little muck around. I didnt even read the whole thread

Off topic just for a second AK ... ... the more I use that Tamron 70-200 the more I really really like it and reckon its super bang for your buck for portraiture. Under studio heads yesterday, it was going blow for blow with my new CZ .. from 5.6 through 11 it is super.

[farmer_rob]

I havent read the whole thread .. but thought id add ... that I shot a handheld portrait yesterday at 135mm, 5.6, ISO200, 1/10th sec .... with Tamron 70-200 (non stabilised lens) and Sony in-body SSS switched on. The photo is as sharp as a tack Is that contribution in any way relevant to the thread ??

Do you have any evidence to back up your claims? I think we need a detailed summary of your experience before we consider your contribution .

It's encouraging that it does enable you to get tack sharp pictures in reality (as opposed to what the manufacturer claims.) You've certainly given it a challenge there.

Relating to AK's discussion though, it would be very interesting to see how a similar shot comes out with the newer IS sigma lens, and how the IS in lens compares to the IS in camera.

[arthurking83]

.... ... ... the more I use that Tamron 70-200 the more I really really like it and reckon its super bang for your buck for portraiture. ....

I'm going to to give it whirl on FF(D700) one day soon to see if I can get slightly better IQ at beyond f/8(well f/11 really) on the D300 I think I get too much diffraction from it.

preliminary tests only so far!. cant be stuffed to do more detailed tests to see if it's a reality or operator error in those prelim tests I did ages ago. I barely use it past f/8 in normal usage anyhow.. so f/11 is a moot point! I'd prefer that they stop the aperture range at f/8 and extend it beyond the f/2.8 range anyhow.. something like f/1 would have been more useful!

[bigdazzler]

Do you have any evidence to back up your claims? I think we need a detailed summary of your experience before we consider your contribution .

Yep I got the photo, with exif attached, that should suffice ... And of the 300 plus threads Ive started in my time here, I reckon 90% of them are image threads.

It's encouraging that it does enable you to get tack sharp pictures in reality (as opposed to what the manufacturer claims.) You've certainly given it a challenge there.

Mate I find the Sony SSS very very good .. I can consistently shoot low light/handheld down to about 1/25th-1/30th if necessary, and most times get a sharp enough useable shot. In fact sometimes Id rather go this route than boost ISO, particularly if Ive got somewhere to brace for support.

[arthurking83]

Do you have any evidence to back up your claims? I think we need a detailed summary of your experience before we consider your contribution .....

[etherial]

(AK, have you read Thom Hogan's recent rules for use of VR - it gives some quite interesting comments on the values and limitations of image stabilisation.)

Thanks for posting that, very interesting reading.

[joele]

Its all a matter of improving your chances.. I came from Pentax (starting with the original ist*D) through Oly (e3) and finally settled on Canon (50d).. Pentax and Oly in body stabilisation works well to increase your chances of getting a sharp shot at crazy shutter speeds, and so does IS in lens. But I find the number of sharp results are higher with in lens IS rather than in body in long lenses where stabilisation is really needed IMO.

Note: The only IS lens I have for canon is the 70-200/4 IS L which apparently has one of the better/newer implementations of in lens IS, but I did have a K7 from Pentax so that is also their newest implementation.

Sorry I don't have detailed analysis to prove my claim either ;-0 just personal experience with the various systems.

[bigdazzler]

Sorry I don't have detailed analysis to prove my claim either ;-0 just personal experience with the various systems.

Welcome to AP ... be sure to show us some photography soon

[joele]

Welcome to AP ... be sure to show us some photography soon

hasn't been updated in too long but there you go - http://www.eisner.id.au/

[farmer_rob]

...
Sorry I don't have detailed analysis to prove my claim either ;-0 just personal experience with the various systems.

I hope you didn't take me too seriously - I was poking fun at Bigdazzler related to comments in another thread.

Welcome aboard and looking forward to seeing pictures (but you don't have to prove anything )

[joele]

its cool I did also want to point out I hadn't owned any of the systems simultaneously so I have never done a direct head to head, its just how they felt in use..