Does IS make you a 'lazy' photographer?

[ps2user]

Before i get flamed :) just wondered if IS makes your technique in holdig your camera worse? Since you will rely on your IS more? Hope this makes sense :oops:

I'm asking as i've recently brought a 17-55 IS and blown away by the IQ and sharpness even at f/2.8 . I've had the tammy 28-75 f/2.8 and i could never achieve that sort of sharpness handheld, only when on a tripod :( thats even when the shutter speed was high. This is also comparing my images taken with the 50mm f/1.4 and 70-200 f/4 aswell.

So am I actually hindering my camera holding technique as i have left IS on all the time? And if so then the only way to improve is to switch IS off? And my technique must be rubbish since this the lens is only a very short focal length :cry:

[Steiglitz]

It would be exceedling absurd to think that a helpful feature like IS makes one "lazy". Does driving a automatic transmission car make a driver lazy?

Using IS will not hurt your hand holding technique one bit. Even with IS on, you still have to be steady, albeit not as much as if IS were off, so one still needs to endeavor to hold the camera correctly and steady even with IS.

Don't worry about this type of stupid topic....just use the tools and features to their fullest and make some nice pictures. Be more worried about things that matter, like your compostion and framing skills, post processing skills, adjusting exposure skills, things like that.

[runninmann]

My IS lens is among my lesser used lenses, so my habits are honed more by the non-IS lenses. In fact, even when I'm using the 70-300 IS, the only time I actually think about the IS is when I'm in situations that require it.

[pcasciola]

Yes, it can lead to bad habits, and I have an exact case where this happened to me.

I picked up my 70-200/2.8L IS and noticed I could then shoot one handed because the IS was so good. Well, my 20D kept locking up and I thought there was a problem with the lens. After some research, I found out the weight of this lens puts too much torque on the body, and can cause the contacts to not be as solid on some body/lens combinations which leads to the lockups. I went back to supporting the lens with my left hand and never had the problem again. Without IS I doubt I would have ever tried that stupid move.

[Steiglitz]

Yes, it can lead to bad habits, and I have an exact case where this happened to me.

I picked up my 70-200/2.8L IS and noticed I could then shoot one handed because the IS was so good. Well, my 20D kept locking up and I thought there was a problem with the lens. After some research, I found out the weight of this lens puts too much torque on the body, and can cause the contacts to not be as solid on some body/lens combinations which leads to the lockups. I went back to supporting the lens with my left hand and never had the problem again. Without IS I doubt I would have ever tried that stupid move.


Your reasoning is the exception and not the rule. In general, one assumes that one will hold the camera with two hands regardless if IS is on or off. I have three IS lenses that I use often and I never change my hand holding methods regardless of whether IS is on or off...what does change is that when IS is on, the view finder shows rock solid steadiness.

[pcasciola]

I said it can lead to bad habits, not that everyone will start to have bad habits.

EDIT: With a grip strap I often hold the camera with one hand, and I think this technique is more common than you think. Just not a good idea with a heavy lens, but no problem with a smaller one.

[Blue S2]

Actually, auto trans. does make some people lazy drivers!

I don't think of IS as a problem solver. I pretend its not on. I also try not to go beyond what I know I can reasonably hand hold. At 105mm with IS on...About 1/80 or 1/60 is my limit. A little more if I go less than 35mm. Without IS on...I rarely go beyond 1/125 handheld. It's just more of an assurance that my shot has a better chance. On my lenses that don't have it, I keep to my general rules.

[20droger]

Whatever would Ansel have done without IS?

[cdifoto]

So am I actually hindering my camera holding technique as i have left IS on all the time?

Only if you let it happen.

[grego]

No. I just know I can do a little bit more because I have IS. It's lazy not to know what your lens are capable of and use them to their maximum potential.

Lazy would be like putting your camera on fully auto.

[cdifoto]

Whatever would Ansel have done without IS?

Ansel Adams didn't handhold, or shoot low light weddings as far as I know.


I really wish people would stop dropping his name as if he is the end all be all of photographers.

[grego]

Whatever would Ansel have done without IS?

But if he did have access to it, it'd probably make the most of it just like any other tools out there he used in his time.

He was a very creative guy. He would have used the current tools to their potential if he had access to them.

[blonde]

Ansel Adams didn't handhold, or shoot low light weddings as far as I know.


I really wish people would stop dropping his name as if he is the end all be all of photographers.

never going to happen my friend. i do find it amusing that people drop his name regardless of the topic. the guy did mostly landscapes and IS is pretty much worthless for what he did. he also used MF lenses which are small and light so again, no real need for IS.

[cdifoto]

never going to happen my friend. i do find it amusing that people drop his name regardless of the topic. the guy did mostly landscapes and IS is pretty much worthless for what he did. he also used MF lenses which are small and light so again, no real need for IS.

Yeah. And a tripod. And all day to take a single shot.

[blonde]

Yeah. And a tripod. And all day to take a single shot.


JUST like a wedding photographer well, except for the time, tripod, lighting etc.. ;)

[Mark_Cohran]

I don't think it makes me lazy, but rather it extends the capability of my lenses. I was shooting with one of my IS lenses earlier today, and I was still using the same technique of tucking in my elbows, taking a breath, and gently releasing the shutter just as I do with my non-IS lenses.

Mark

[gryphonslair99]

I'm not so sure that IS makes people lazy as much as they just might be less knowlegable. Just as the advent of good quality DSLR's have made photographers less knowlegable about some of the little things involved in photography. With film every shot cost money ontop of the cost of your equipment whether that shot was right the first time or not. With digital if you don't get it right the first time, shoot some more. It costs nothing but time. Erase the mistakes and go on.

An automatic transmission does not make you a lazy driver. But if the only car left to drive is a manual transmission and you never learned to use one, driving may be out of the question.

I would question how many of the average photographers that have purchased IS lenses have taken the time to practice enough to shoot a steady photo at 1/15 of a second shutter speed without IS. It is never the prefered method, but having the ability to do so if absolutely necessary does have value.

[nicksan]

My big fat beer gut is what makes me lazy.:)

Anyways, IS is so helpful that it makes me want to shoot more.
But sure, it's nice to know that IS is there to save the day when you have shaky hands...

[cdifoto]

My big fat beer gut is what makes me lazy.:)

You got that backwards. :) :p

[ed rader]

Before i get flamed :) just wondered if IS makes your technique in holdig your camera worse? Since you will rely on your IS more? Hope this makes sense :oops:

I'm asking as i've recently brought a 17-55 IS and blown away by the IQ and sharpness even at f/2.8 . I've had the tammy 28-75 f/2.8 and i could never achieve that sort of sharpness handheld, only when on a tripod :( thats even when the shutter speed was high. This is also comparing my images taken with the 50mm f/1.4 and 70-200 f/4 aswell.

So am I actually hindering my camera holding technique as i have left IS on all the time? And if so then the only way to improve is to switch IS off? And my technique must be rubbish since this the lens is only a very short focal length :cry:

when i made the move from the 24-105L to the 24-70L i found i was losing shots because of motion blur.

i had become complacent about shutter speed.

so i think IS can make you lazy but the condition is easily correctable.

ed rader