Youd dont need IS, damn!

davidfarina wrote in post #15934525
Hahaha true. But i never said IS is bad, i talked about people whining about wide angle lenses having no is...

And you followed up - in the same thread - with "FACT" and some statements that aren't really true.

And then in your next post noted that you also were of the belief that higher ISO support would basically totally remove the need for IS.

When debating under the assumption that IS and ISO means the same thing (and as CyberDyneSystems notes - "stops" can be deceiving), you will get people to tell you that so isn't the case.

They can sometimes solve the same problem. But in other situations, they will not be even closely able to solve the same problem. So ISO can never replace IS. And IS can never replace ISO.

Ignoring noise, you can still get a huge difference with 4 stops longer shutter time instead of 4 stops higher ISO. Or for stops faster lens compared to 4 stops higher ISO. Test it, and come back and tell what difference you see. And while a tripod is also a good way to allow longer shutter times, you just have to accept that they aren't always practical of even possible to use. So tripods can't magically remove all needs for IS. And that is the case with wide lenses just as well as with tele lenses.

You can always talk for yourself. But you instantly get into issues if you want to be the spoke person for the rest of the people on this forum and tell them what works for them. And that is exactly what you decided to do in this thread.

pwm2 wrote in post #15934558
And you followed up - in the same thread - with "FACT" and some statements that aren't really true.

And then in your next post noted that you also were of the belief that higher ISO support would basically totally remove the need for IS.

When debating under the assumption that IS and ISO means the same thing (and as CyberDyneSystems notes - "stops" can be deceiving), you will get people to tell you that so isn't the case.

They can sometimes solve the same problem. But in other situations, they will not be even closely able to solve the same problem. So ISO can never replace IS. And IS can never replace ISO.

Ignoring noise, you can still get a huge difference with 4 stops longer shutter time instead of 4 stops higher ISO. Or for stops faster lens compared to 4 stops higher ISO. Test it, and come back and tell what difference you see. And while a tripod is also a good way to allow longer shutter times, you just have to accept that they aren't always practical of even possible to use. So tripods can't magically remove all needs for IS. And that is the case with wide lenses just as well as with tele lenses.

You can always talk for yourself. But you instantly get into issues if you want to be the spoke person for the rest of the people on this forum and tell them what works for them. And that is exactly what you decided to do in this thread.

true, if you are shooting from a moving platform -- e.g., a boat -- a tripod isn't going to do squat for you.

pwm2 wrote in post #15934558
And you followed up - in the same thread - with "FACT" and some statements that aren't really true.

And then in your next post noted that you also were of the belief that higher ISO support would basically totally remove the need for IS.

When debating under the assumption that IS and ISO means the same thing (and as CyberDyneSystems notes - "stops" can be deceiving), you will get people to tell you that so isn't the case.

They can sometimes solve the same problem. But in other situations, they will not be even closely able to solve the same problem. So ISO can never replace IS. And IS can never replace ISO.

Ignoring noise, you can still get a huge difference with 4 stops longer shutter time instead of 4 stops higher ISO. Or for stops faster lens compared to 4 stops higher ISO. Test it, and come back and tell what difference you see. And while a tripod is also a good way to allow longer shutter times, you just have to accept that they aren't always practical of even possible to use. So tripods can't magically remove all needs for IS. And that is the case with wide lenses just as well as with tele lenses.

You can always talk for yourself. But you instantly get into issues if you want to be the spoke person for the rest of the people on this forum and tell them what works for them. And that is exactly what you decided to do in this thread.

Yes but i found it unnecessairy to edit since the second post corrected it

murkeywaters wrote in post #15934476
Your the OP so you have to take the flak, snide comments, lies, insults, jibes, abuse and just generally be beaten into submission of other peoples views from across the globe that you will never meet and if you did you would probably be their friend as they have the same interest as you.. that's what I found when I start a post!!

I think it's the way that some folks go about explaining their position > abrasive. I'm don't think it's intended that way, but it sure does keep some folks from continuing to post further.

darosk wrote in post #15933847
I recently bought an OM-D - which for those of you don't know, has in-body image stabilization.

This was shot with a 150mm equivalent focal length, at a shutter speed of 1/8th (yes, that's right):

...

This is so cool I can't stand it.

Would that Olympus or Sony would make one of these bodies with a Canon mount!
(Sigma? Pretty please? You'd sell a lot more than three dozen bodies a year!)

davidfarina wrote in post #15934573
Yes but i found it unnecessairy to edit since the second post corrected it

And you then followed up with post #8 where you wrote "I think exact the same" about IS soon fading away, replaced by high ISO support. Which imply that you think IS is mostly for low light, when the choice is more ISO or more shutter time to get enough exposure.

Do you think it looks good to look at photos of helicopters magically hanging in the air with the main rotor frozen? The difference between frozen rotor or fuzzy rotor is huge for the impact of the photo. So shutter time is a really important parameter to be able to play with. There are a huge number of situations where high ISO can't replace a slow shutter. And if the ground or the subject is moving, so you need to pan, then a tripod isn't too high on the list of most wanted gear.

P.S.

One could also argue we don't need IS, fast apertures or high ISO, we need only employ a flash to solve the issue of hand held camera shake.

It's a great example, as it is also true,. but clearly, it is not applicable not even to just some, but in fact most situations.
There is no single way of doing things, no "one size fits all".


"Thank Darwin" !

davidc502 wrote in post #15934602
I think it's the way that some folks go about explaining their position > abrasive. I'm don't think it's intended that way, but it sure does keep some folks from continuing to post further.

that plus the flawed logic will do it every time .

davidfarina wrote in post #15934216
Yeah but i still dont get it.

What would be so wrong to take a tripod?? I have a cheap tripod, its light and stands in 10 seconds. When im on travel or doing street photography, sure i dont always use the tripod, but the best camera and lens is the one you have with you. To take a good picture, you dont need IS. All what i wanted to say is, its not necessairy, but those who love it, use it! But dont whine around about a 24mm lens not to have IS, because its logical why dont do it; because 95% of the people dont need a 24mm lens which is heavier due to IS, and also doesnt makes too much sense when shooting wide... I didnt want to diss anyone...

How can you say that IS would not rescue a bad picture and turn it into a good picture? Street photography is an excellent example where IS helps enormously, and would be very welcome at any focal length. Dragging around a tripod is usually out of the question. Having IS allows stopping down the aperture to gain depth and still being able to get a clear shot.

For you IS might not be useful...then run along and take your shots without IS, but please don't stand there and argue the merits of IS if you never use it.

davidfarina wrote in post #15934455
I dont deny what your saying? I dont get the point why all are affecting me.

Well maybe because your original OP was so arrogant.

Hogloff wrote in post #15934874
Well maybe because your original OP was so arrogant.

I just realized how many ppl get provocated by such a post.

You mean this to be arrogant, but im just a hobby photographer, i didnt meant that to tell you whats wrong and whats not. It was just about hearing other meanings and this was mine, as this is the way i shoot. I dont need IS but hell it should even be possible with a half second shutterspeed to get a sharp photo? Sure if you have a 200mm lens which weigths about almost 2 kilos then its pretty hard to stay calm, but if you just have a 24mm or a 35mm lens it shouldnt be so hard to get a sharp photo without IS?

Its my thought as i got never into problems without IS, but maybe its because i got pretty disappointet by the functionality of my only IS lens, or maybe cuz my style of photographs which doesnt need the IS, could be..

But sorry for any misunderstandings, this wasnt meant to complain about people who use IS with wise, i was more complaining about people who think IS could compensate f-stops in traditional way (example: i heard alot of people saying: take the IS lens which has f/4, it gives you more than 1 f-stop, instead of a f/2,8 lens.) There you must say, that its wrong. IS is of what i read in that topic, a way to increase the DOF without havingtrouble with too long shutter speeds. Again its not the way i usually shoot as i really like a shallow DOF. But its definately not a compensation of the aperture or ISO

davidfarina wrote in post #15934926
I just realized how many ppl get provocated by such a post.

You mean this to be arrogant, but im just a hobby photographer, i didnt meant that to tell you whats wrong and whats not. It was just about hearing other meanings and this was mine, as this is the way i shoot. I dont need IS but hell it should even be possible with a half second shutterspeed to get a sharp photo? Sure if you have a 200mm lens which weigths about almost 2 kilos then its pretty hard to stay calm, but if you just have a 24mm or a 35mm lens it shouldnt be so hard to get a sharp photo without IS?

Its my thought as i got never into problems without IS, but maybe its because i got pretty disappointet by the functionality of my only IS lens, or maybe cuz my style of photographs which doesnt need the IS, could be..

But sorry for any misunderstandings, this wasnt meant to complain about people who use IS with wise, i was more complaining about people who think IS could compensate f-stops in traditional way (example: i heard alot of people saying: take the IS lens which has f/4, it gives you more than 1 f-stop, instead of a f/2,8 lens.) There you must say, that its wrong. IS is of what i read in that topic, a way to increase the DOF without havingtrouble with too long shutter speeds. Again its not the way i usually shoot as i really like a shallow DOF. But its definately not a compensation of the aperture or ISO

I think what you are seeing is not everyone shoots like you, or agrees with you. in fact i'm not even sure I understand you !

pwm2 wrote in post #15934521
But the OP decided to know if all other photographers needs IS for a 35mm lens or not.

"I like" doesn't mean "you must like". "I need" doesn't mean "you must also need". And in this case "I don't need" doesn't mean that "you don't need" must also be true.

In this case it isn't even a case of need. It's a case of want.

I want IS in as many of my lenses as possible. I want Canon to make a 24-70 f2.8 IS with IQ to match the version II. It upsets me that they introduced a $2000 lens without IS. It isn't like they made it a "budget" lens by leaving off IS.

davidfarina wrote in post #15934525
Hahaha true. But i never said IS is bad, i talked about people whining about wide angle lenses having no is...

You "never" said IS is bad, yet started a thread with a title like "Youd [Sic] dont [Sic] need IS, damn!", and even now berating those who say they need IS in wide angle lenses as "whining", you are asking for it.

davidfarina wrote in post #15934438
Impressive how eloquent and frantically your message is.

Just answering your question in a succinct way.