Image Stabilisation?

TelePaul · 12-02-2009 11:18pm #1

Hi all, have a Canon 70-300mm IS, which is "good for three stops" apparently; of course I'm not exactly sure what this means. If we take the inverse rule to be true, and considering that a shutter speed of less than 1/60 will cause moving subjects to blur, what's the minimum shutter speed I can use at:

100mm

200mm

300mm

Your help in this would be muchly appreciated folks!

Hugh_C · 12-02-2009 11:21pm

without the IS, the rule of thumb is 1/focal length, so @ 300mm you'd need no slower than 1/300 s, so it all depends on the amount of light ...

TelePaul · 12-02-2009 11:27pm

Hugh_C wrote: »

without the IS, the rule of thumb is 1/focal length, so @ 300mm you'd need no slower than 1/300 s, so it all depends on the amount of light ...

Yup, got that, that's the inverse rule I think? I was wondering if image stabilisation will allow me to drop the shutter speed a bit?

Ballyman · 12-02-2009 11:31pm

Plus your crop factor.

So, in theory if you wanted to shoot handheld at 100mm on a canon 40d (1.6 crop) then theoretically you would need to shoot at 1/160 minimun for a steady shot.

If you were to take into account IS then you could, in theory, shoot at three stops less at 1/20 of a second. On a FF camera it would be 1/12 of a second!!! Best of luck with that

Hugh_C · 12-02-2009 11:32pm

TelePaul wrote: »

Yup, got that, that's the inverse rule I think? I was wondering if image stabilisation will allow me to drop the shutter speed a bit?

Sure will, I was using a 18-200 Nikkor VR and was just about getting away with handheld @ 1/15 ish

CabanSail · 12-02-2009 11:33pm

The Guideline is the inverse of the focal length for 35mm. If using a cropped sensor it has to be taken into account, so 300mm becomes 450mm equiv. Without IS you would keep the shutter speed at 1/500th or faster. With IS you get 3 stops, so theoretically you should be able to drop that down to 1/60th

Hugh_C · 12-02-2009 11:35pm

Ballyman wrote: »

Plus your crop factor.

never thought of that ...

TelePaul · 12-02-2009 11:39pm

CabanSail wrote: »

The Guideline is the inverse of the focal length for 35mm. If using a cropped sensor it has to be taken into account, so 300mm becomes 450mm equiv. Without IS you would keep the shutter speed at 1/500th or faster. With IS you get 3 stops, so theoretically you should be able to drop that down to 1/60th

Thanks alot! Can I ask how you got from 1/500th to 1/60th though? And...theoretically? Is there something risky about doing this?

challengemaster · 12-02-2009 11:41pm

also depends how shakey/steady your hands are to start with. I could probably pull off 1/80 steady just grand @200mm.. and I don't have one lens with IS

TelePaul · 12-02-2009 11:45pm

challengemaster wrote: »

also depends how shakey/steady your hands are to start with. I could probably pull off 1/80 steady just grand @200mm.. and I don't have one lens with IS

Unless I'm wedged against a wall or some such, I've no chance of holding anywhere near that steady. Very shakey hands.

pete4130 · 12-02-2009 11:55pm

I've shot handheld, indoors on a D200 with a 70-300 VR (IS lens) @ 300mm (450mm equivelant on dx sensor)with 1/10th second and it was ok. Impossible without the VR. It depends how steady you can hold the camera/lens and time your shot between your heartbeat (I'm serious!).
The minimum shutter speed should equal your focal length, in a perfect world it should be double your focal length.

pete4130 · 12-02-2009 11:58pm

TelePaul wrote: »

Thanks alot! Can I ask how you got from 1/500th to 1/60th though? And...theoretically? Is there something risky about doing this?

1/500th with 1 stop increase is 1/250th, with 2 stop increse is 1/125th and with 3 stop increase it is 1/60th.
You could probably try at 1/30 if you were curled up in a ball so small and stable you were actually almost self imploding.

ThOnda · 13-02-2009 12:21am

It also depends what is your technique of pressing the trigger. For good results, I would go only for one stop longer time. But I don't have any IS lens (yet).

TelePaul · 13-02-2009 12:55am

ThOnda wrote: »

For good results, I would go only for one stop longer time.

So you mean if I'm at 1/500 I should just take it down one stop to 1/250?

Thanks everybodys!

Fajitas! · 13-02-2009 2:27am

Tbh, get a good grip and your sorted, using IS, I'll happily shoot my 70-200 at 1/60.

This is a crop of a shot, handheld at 1/30 of a sec at 135mm with no IS, (In VERY low light...) just a matter of getting a good grip and not jabbing your shutter.

One could say I'm a human tripod.

I have steady hands too... :pac:

pete4130 · 13-02-2009 2:31am

Fajitas! wrote: »

One could say I'm a human tripod.

I have steady hands too... :pac:

That genuinely made me laugh Al...thanks!

Mycroft H · 13-02-2009 8:14am

I'v got away with 1/15 hand held with a 300mm.....

I'v a steady hand

TelePaul · 13-02-2009 10:16am

Fajitas! wrote: »

Tbh, get a good grip and your sorted, using IS, I'll happily shoot my 70-200 at 1/60.

This is a crop of a shot, handheld at 1/30 of a sec at 135mm with no IS, (In VERY low light...) just a matter of getting a good grip and not jabbing your shutter.

One could say I'm a human tripod.

I have steady hands too... :pac:

Thanks a mil Al!

CabanSail · 13-02-2009 10:29am

TelePaul wrote: »

Thanks alot! Can I ask how you got from 1/500th to 1/60th though? And...theoretically? Is there something risky about doing this?

With VR (IS) it is quoted that you can get 3 Stops from it. What they mean is you can adjust the shutter speed 3 stops slower than what would normally be required to get a sharp shot with an non-VR lens.

So if you are using the inverse of the (35mm equiv) focal length for your minimum shutter speed & the lens is 300mm x 1.6 = 480mm. The minimum reccomended shutter speed would be 1/500th of a second.

One stop under 1/500th = 1/250th. Two stops = 1/125th. Three stops = 1/60th.

The risk is Blur. If the VR or IS is doing it's job then it should be OK.

TelePaul · 13-02-2009 11:53pm

Hmmmm. Still not sold on this. Got back from the tip-rugby, bright enough out at 2pm today. Didn't extend past 200m, set drive dial to TV and stuck between 120 and 160 (with IS turned on). Still getting shocking amounts of blur, though it's possible that it's a focusing thing; there are two stabilisation modes depending on how you intend to compose. Guess I need to experiment more.

challengemaster · 13-02-2009 11:58pm

Wouldn't fancy my chances trying to capture moving people playing a game at 1/120

There's your problem. I'd be going for atleast 1/400

What you're getting now is not blur from camera shake, its blur from motion of the players.

Nisio · 14-02-2009 12:08am

TelePaul wrote: »

Hmmmm. Still not sold on this. Got back from the tip-rugby, bright enough out at 2pm today. Didn't extend past 200m, set drive dial to TV and stuck between 120 and 160 (with IS turned on). Still getting shocking amounts of blur, though it's possible that it's a focusing thing; there are two stabilisation modes depending on how you intend to compose. Guess I need to experiment more.

Are the players blured or is the whole picture blured?

Players blured and back ground sharp might be too slow a shutter speed
Everything blured might be lens shake

Paddy@CIRL · 14-02-2009 1:03am

I've terrible shakey hands and I often get away with 1/15 and 1/20 at 300mm with IS. Even without IS I could manage 1/40 at 200mm handy enough. Your best bet is to just go out and try, an American motorsports photographer called John Thawley wrote about a related subject and he put it as 'If your coming home with too many keepers. your not trying hard enough'

Image Stabilisation?

Comments