Camera shake

[Journeyman]

Good day,
I would like to ask about shake. I am guessing that most photographers have had an episode of shakes at some stage. It is something that effects me 80-90% of the time. Always been so.
Neither my 400 Canon lens nor 7D2 camera have stabilising available. The Canon telephoto lenses come with stabilising. I am working to steady the camera against me, hand grip and elbow combination offers some help.
Would someone mind commenting on the Canon 100-400 lens mark 1 please? I am sure the glass part is excellent, what about the slide zoom action and the seal system? Is it dust proof and reliable? The mark 2 is a little bit up there $wise.
I have a Tamron 18-400, I would like to move Canon lenses if possible.
As always, many thanks and kind regards, Journeyman (Dennis)

[ameerat42]

They both (Mk 1 and 2) have image stabilisation (IS), but the Mk 1 has only 2 stops of it vs the 4 stops on the Mk2.

This video talks about both lenses:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsGnZWiO8n8

The next video does a comparison between several brands (but it's a bit long):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TawKGClbECU

One thing I'd say about your affording it: if IS is a serious issue, then go for the Mk 2. You're
wasting money missing on the best of that feature. I have a Sigma 50-500 which has 4 stops.
It's a cinch to use at 500mm to about 1/60sec, though that low with bracing against something.

[ricktas]

If this is a consistent issue for you Dennis, without talking about lenses, have you considered a monopod?

Still allows the freedom to move around easily, unlike a tripod, but a monopod offers a good amount of stability to counter the shaking. it iss a much cheaper option that new lens(es). For your bird photography, a monopod offers a good range of movement, unrestricted, but with the foot of the monopod on the ground or even rested up against a log etc, it provides invaluable support and stability that might just counter your shaking.

[nardes]

Just to add to the comments above, I did migrate from the venerable Canon 400mm F5.6L to the 100-400mm Mk II and for objects that do not move much, yes the IS really does help at shutter speeds of less than 1/400 sec.

If the bird is moving e.g. a bird in flight, or it is hopping around in a shrub, then IS will not freeze the motion of the bird, you need a higher shutter speed with usually means higher ISO. I am lucky enough to have a Canon 5D Mk IV and EOS R6 and they can produce quite clean shots at ISO1600/3200 and even 6400 provided the subject more or less fills the frame. If I have to make big crops, the image quality of the higher ISO shots are not as good.

I find that a monopod did help me with the 400mm F5.6 for subjects with reasonably predictable movements and it was a bonus in supporting the weight of the camera/lens. Although a monopod is less steady that a tripod, it takes the strain off hand holding and I did find that it greatly reduced the unwanted large wobbles of hand holding to a much smaller amount (amplitude and area) and this also helped in making photography more successful and pleasant.

I personally resisted purchasing the original version of the Canon 100-400 as an upgrade to the 400mm F5.6L and saved up until I could afford the Mk II as I had read on line that the IS and IQ on the Mk II were definite upgrades on the Mk I. I justified the cost by telling myself this would be a 10-15-year lens, so the investment was worthwhile, and I also was able to enjoy a discount of 15% as a local supplier was giving 15% off on all Canon lenses. Keep an eye out for these offers, they make it bearable.

Cheers

Dennis

Cheers

Dennis

[junqbox]

My solution was to just use a tripod for everything, combined with remote shutter release. Luckily, my wife is very obliging in carrying it for me when out on walks etc ;-)

[Gazza]

Agree, monopod is the way-to-go for myself as well.

I doubt I'd shake as much as you, but an old shoulder injury puts a strain on things at times. I place the monopod on an angle in front of me, then keep the legs spread so that you're form that tripod stance. Easy. Also handy when you spot something to take the weight while hoping they'll come out of the shade or move to a better perch.

I have the 100 - 400 mk1 and haven't had any trouble over the last 10 years. As for dust, I live near Mildura, Northern Vic, and you've probably seen some of the massive dust storm we suffer through and no hassles at all.

Cheers =

[Journeyman]

Thank you all for the help and advice.
I sold my third kidney and bought a 2nd hand Canon 100-400 mk2.

*removed- site rule breach - refer to site rule 23*

The quality and availability of help makes this forum outstanding. I hope at some stage I am in a position to return the favour.

Thank you again,
Dennis

[Geoff79]

I'm probably just speaking what everyone else (but me) already knows, and it's slightly off topic, but also on topic.

Do photographers here turn IS off when shooting on a tripod? Especially at long focal lengths? This is something I only just heard about, but it probably explains why the few shots I have taken at long focal lengths on a tripod always seem soft. Anyway, here's someone smarter than me explaining it, with examples, better than I can;

http://www.outdoorphotoacademy.com/t...-using-tripod/

Apologies if I'm just telling y'all the sky is blue.

[Tannin]

Not these days, Geoff. It was something you used to have to do with very, very early iterations of IS. We are talking 20-odd years back. You may, however, find that AF works significantly better with IS off, certainly with long lenses. (The very latest IS systems offer IS Mode 3, which (among other virtues) allows full-speed AF.)

[mudman]

what i don't understand is why IS is in the lens
on the Pentax shake reduction (SR), i assume is similar to IS, is in the camera
which means you only pay for it once, not every time you buy a lens
also, when using certain shutter settings, SR is automatically turned off

[ricktas]

what i don't understand is why IS is in the lens
on the Pentax shake reduction (SR), i assume is similar to IS, is in the camera
which means you only pay for it once, not every time you buy a lens
also, when using certain shutter settings, SR is automatically turned off

Canon and Nikon have their IS in the camera lenses, not in the body of their cameras

[Tannin]

The logic is that IS in-lens is significantly more effective than in-body. That certainly used to be true; whether it is still true don't know.

[Journeyman]

Good day Members,

I just noticed the rule breach in my last post.

I have remembered what the line was. Forgive the breach, it was not meant to be a serious remark. Most certainly not to offend.

Sorry about that, kind regards, Journeyman.

[farmmax]

I have a 100-400 mk 1 and I'm not sure I've even got the IS turned on. I'm very happy with the photos taken with the lens. Normally it is used for taking animals including birds.
It is nice to quickly move the camera around freehand without the bother of a tripod. I know the IS is turned off on my Tamron lens.

I'm really glad money was a problem when first starting photography. There was never enough money for a tripod, so I just made do without. The end result was being able to handhold lenses down to low shutter speeds, if I wanted to take decent photos. It's great not having to lug a tripod around

Technological advances can have uses, but it may be useful to keep practicing basic skills as well.

[Journeyman]

Good points Farmmax, there is a bloke that is part of the birding group I move around with who has an excellent alternative to a tripod.
A south African who came to Aust. he uses a method that came from the hunting tribes there.
He has 3 pieces of bamboo about 12mm diameter and as tall as his shoulders. They are held together by one rubber band. When he wants to stabilise his camera he holds them upright at the band with one hand, spreads the legs to a suitable angle/base, rests the camera on the small triangle formed at the top and takes the photo.
It is a simple, effective method. The bamboo also acts as a staff when he is walking.

The cost was less than $5.00. This is a very simple, cost effective method, I hope that it reads like that. I converted 3 lenses for into cash to buy the 100-400. Like you I am happy with the trail I had to follow to get my gear. Thankfully the second hand market has some good, honest resellers.
Kind regards, Dennis

[arthurking83]

what i don't understand is why IS is in the lens
on the Pentax shake reduction (SR), i assume is similar to IS, is in the camera
which means you only pay for it once, not every time you buy a lens
also, when using certain shutter settings, SR is automatically turned off

As already said, one main benefit was that in early days, lens IS was considered better.
The other two schools of thought were:

*if you already had a non IS camera body, then the IS lens gave you IS on that old faithful non IS camera body too. You may think "well, just upgrade bodies" or something so simple, but it should be remembered that IS came along (again as already said) >20 odd years ago(1999 for Nikon).
In 1999 a digital camera for a pro was a considerable amount of $s, and more importantly many still film. So you had usable IS on film bodies(of the era) .. at least in Nikon world.

* the other advantage of IS in lens(back then) was that IS also stabilised the viewfinder for the photographer too. stabilise the lens, and it stabilised the entire camera. vf is a separate light path to the sensor, so stabilised sensor only gave you a stabilised image ... not a stabilised view as well. Some liked this, others just liked the non shaken result. Horses for courses.

Once invested in a particular system(eg. Lens IS), it was harder to then change this system to accommodate another system(body IS) too(so it seems).

I also remember reading somewhere a tech talk type interview(maybe DPR, maybe a Nikon specific site), but another reason Nikon went with lens IS is that if it fails, you still have other lenses that can do the job. If IS fails in camera, there's no guarantee that it will fail in the 'home' position and possibly result in a useless camera if that happened. **one other tech issue with Nikon systems, below**

Nikon had some 'similar/same lenses' back in the day, with and without IS in them, and the price increase of a lens with IS(VR in Nikonspeak) wasn't a real problem.
At the consumer end, I think between $25 -50 for the cheapo lenses(think 18-55's), and price difference between an 80-200/2.8 AF-S lens and the new 70-200/2.8 VR AF-S lens, the VR lens was cheaper(RRP) new.

So there are drawbacks and advantages for any engineering type if you look hard enough .. but of course nowadays with these newfangled mirrorless(liveview always on) type camera .. all these old engineering connundrums are forgotten about.

Now, many mirrorless camera models/makers have both .. in lens AND in camera IS systems.


** the other tech issue that was often referred too with body IS was a physical problem. I don't know if true, never directly addressed by Nikon themselves, but clever types made calculations.
Nikon has a long backfocus/register distance in their DSLR/SLR systems.
This means that lens is slightly further from camera body. Almost certainly this was to stop folks using Nikon bodies with foreign lenses .. afterall Nikon sold far more lenses than bodies. They probably didn't care if you used a Nikon lens on a foreign camera tho.
So the lens further from body and a smaller physical mount from wayyy back in the initial days ... meant that an inbody VR system in a Nikon DSLR would almost certainly vignette very badly more likely mechanically.. ie. black corners in the image.

I always wondered why Nikon never brought a DLSR with inbody IS even in the modern era .. simp0ly no room for it I suppose. But their first two mirrorless cameras HAD to have in body IS .. so I guess the internet gurus were right about the size/space issues in Nikon DSLRs at least.


With Tripod and IS, some lenses dont' have a tripod mode, so has to be turned off(tried this many times with some of my Nikon lenses). Only lens I have with a tripod IS mode is the Siggy 150-600 .. I tested it very little .. no difference I can see. I do remember one situation where I used the 150-600 on a tripod shooting some flowers in a field, I forgot IS on in normal mode and for sure images were blurry at about 1/60s .. doh! IS off and all OK-ish again.

[ameerat42]

AK, you gave me 2 ideas...

No matter whether IS is in-body or in-lens, what about interposing a teleconverter?
That would change the "stop" value of the IS - by decreasing it.

For IBIS, wouldn't the stop value decrease with focal length?

As I see it, that would make in-lens IS "better" in that regard, since the stop value
is fixed for that lens.

But of course, it's always fixed for a given focal length, so for a zoom lens... [say no more]

But

[arthurking83]

AK, you gave me 2 ideas...

No matter whether IS is in-body or in-lens, what about interposing a teleconverter?
That would change the "stop" value of the IS - by decreasing it.

For IBIS, wouldn't the stop value decrease with focal length?

As I see it, that would make in-lens IS "better" in that regard, since the stop value
is fixed for that lens.

But of course, it's always fixed for a given focal length, so for a zoom lens... [say no more]

But

Basically ... I dunno!

For lens IS with TC, I guess the stop advantage would be the same value.
ie. on a 105mm lens with a 3 stop VR(Nikonspeak) advantage, the lens VR stop advantage would still be 3 stops I 'spose
Obviously the shutter speed value would change, because now you have increased magnification for the same focus distance(ie. focal length) when adding the TC.

With a 2x TC, the above 105mm lens would now be a 210mm lens. So if a 3 stop VR advantage = would equal(eg.) 1/15s (compared to 1/100s) shutter speed, then with the 2xTC the new 3 stop advantage would be 1/50s (compared to 1/200s) shutter speed.

I don't remember what the stated stop advantage factor compares too in terms of shutter speed, but it would be reasonable to assume ISO100 and 1/focal length in appropriate lighting.
That is, the Nikon 105mm VR is a macro lens .. like the Canon 100 macro, and many other 100mm macro lenses.
I'm wondering if the stated stop advantage is measured at infinity(ie. less magnification) or is it also measured and stated at higher magnifications too .. and does this advantage change over focus distance.
Would IBIS or lens IS systems have any advantages over one another in terms of actual advantages(not marketing hype).

Only lens I know of in terms of these specs is the Nikon 105VR(coz I have it), and Nikon do state a 4stop VR advantage from infinity to 3m(focus distance) .. so VR here doesn't help with macro range.
It is an old (design) lens, and maybe newer lens IS systems have macro specific IS programs in their brains boxes. Just that I know the Nikon 105 doesn't.
To highlight the differences(and why my curiosity) is that the quite similar 85mm Dx VR macro lens doesn't specify a focus range in it's VR blurb .. just says 4 stops.
the 105VR is old gen(assume VR1) where the 85VR is marked as VRII .. so maybe newer IS systems can do better.
These rambling would(could) give some insight as to what happens if a TC is added into the mix.

I remember back in the day DPR used to test lenses and include some testing of the IS system too. They stopped posting any figures long ago, but in some of the really early lens tests they used to have a small graphic showing IS results from the lens with percentages of sharp images captured at various shutter speeds. Obviously not scientific to be treated as hard evidence, but as long as the same person did the testing trying hard to use the exact same technique still a reasonable insight as to how effective they were.

Best info I can find re macro and IS in lens is from old DPR tests where they test the Canon 100 (hybrid)IS macro lens. They did test both 'normal range'(whatever this means?) and close range(close to 1:1).
Canon claimed 4stops at normal range(DPR tested it to be close enough), and Canon claimed 2stops at close range(again, whatever that meant) .. DPR found 1stop at 1:1

[Tannin]

Stated stop values are like stated fuel economy. I'd only compare (e.g.) "3 stop" vs "4 stop" if both lenses are from the same manufacturer, and not be too confident even then. I certainly wouldn't pay too much attention to the claims if one lens is from Nikon (who have been doing IS for a very long time) or Canon (who invented it in the first place) and the other is from a third-party maker. Bryan over at The Digital Pictures tests IS when he reviews a lens. He is honest, skillful, and careful, and you can trust his results.

To AM's question. No, adding a teleconverter makes no difference whatever to the "stop value". Suppose you have a "two stop" IS system on a 100mm f/4 lens, and that without IS your lowest possible handheld shutter speed for a given scene at a given ISO and aperture is 1/120th. A so-called "two stop" IS system will let you hand hold down to 1/30th (i.e., two stops slower).

Now put a 2X teleconverter on. You are at 200mm. With IS off, looking at the same scene at the same aperture and ISO, you can probably handhold down to something like a 250th. Now switch the IS on: you can handhold down to 1/60th.

[arthurking83]

..... I certainly wouldn't pay too much attention to the claims if one lens is from Nikon (who have been doing IS for a very long time) or Canon (who invented it in the first place) and the other is from a third-party maker. Bryan over at The Digital Pictures tests IS when he reviews a lens. He is honest, skillful, and careful, and you can trust his results.

.....

correction: Nikon 'invented it' technically, in that the first lens (+camera) to market was a Nikon. It had in lens VR, but it wasn't a dedicated interchangeable lens. Some arcane 28-100mm lens built into a point and shoot type camera body(can't remember the model name tho).
Canon came a year later with a dedicated standalone lens .. some 70-300 IS lens(IIRC, and Canon people are free to correct this) for fitment to their cameras.
Nikon first lens was about 97-99(can't remember exactly) with the 100-400VR lens.

Agree re Digital Picture, always like his reviews. But there's a point to watch out for in his skillfullness.
Whilst there's no doubting his skill, the issue could be for the average non skilled photographer is their technique compared to Digital Pictures.
So where Bryan may possibly get a 4 stop advantage from a lens claiming 4 stops of advantage, the non skilled person may not get as much advantage.

Maybe not a big deal, except in the situation where a less skilled person will start shouting on the web that they can't get sharp shots at 1/60s with their 400mm lens, and that the stabilised lens is garbage .. or something.
(it's not like we haven't ever seen this situation arise on the net! )

For me, actual skill is less important compared to consistency of results:

noting that IS testing would require handholding the camera to do the tests, not a dedicated rig to eliminate variance.

So if DPR were less skilled(but still consistent) at testing, and found a 3 stop advantage in their results .. this would indicate they are less skilled.
If Digital Picture found 4 stop advantage with the same lens, ie. means that Bryan has more skill in his technique.
To my mind, the DPR results would be more valid for the less killed person seeking info on what to expect.

One thing I noted in my web travels is that DPR stopped doing OIS tests. I think one person used to do the testing, maybe this person left DPR so they decided to cease this testing(showing results). Now they only say that it 'works well' or something cryptic like that.

What would be a better IS testing would be 3(or more) different people doing a series of shots and averaging them out.