Shutter speed to turn off IS?

This is what you wrote, using statements of totality... EDIT: my mistake, I concentrated on the latter part, so I have included your prerequisite comment back in...

During sports, we are sitting on a sideline, we aim and track a player, and we take a shot. Their pores are visible, we used a fast shutter speed, and we don't have IS/OS/VC or whatever. So therefore there is indeed shutter speeds for any given normal sports focal length where the motion of the shooter is stopped. In sports, I think those situations are pretty rare for what you are calling out, but perhaps for track and field per the OP, there may be cases. Maybe adding "for a number of people" to that might be more accurate?

Also, the ability to hold and shoot at long focal lengths and still get a good shot is really depending on the shooter, their age, and ability to hold their gear steady. That is yet another factor. If you are a bit shaky, or have really heavy gear you are handholding, like a big DSLR and 800mm, then sure, IS makes sense. Distance is another factor, and with most sports, distances aren't particularly huge.

I tried this. I sat down like I would in a sports shooting and aimed at these little guys (since I have no wildlife in the area any longer). I didn't even have a fast shutter speed. Somehow I changed my shutter speed by accident as I moved around. No monopod, no tripod, just my sitting, picking up the camera, focusing (manually I might add), and took the shot. It would have been a bit clearer perhaps at 1/2000th or faster.

I don't see any issue with IS twitch/jump though with newer lenses when engaging IS. Again, I have used a number of lenses in the past, and could indeed see the image shift in the viewfinder, and that shift would sometimes get captured during a burst, for example, so I developed a habit of leaving it off. Since that was my leading reason for not having it on, it seems that for some lenses, leaving IS on all the time won't have this issue.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18719471
This is what you wrote, using statements of totality...

there is no possible shutter speed that is fast enough to completely and utterly suppress camera movement.

.
But Cary, in all fairness to me, you should have included the whole sentence. . You intentionally left off the first part of the sentence, just to make me look bad. . That's not playing fairly, and is mis-representing what I actually said.

I qualified my statement by using the phrase, "in many shooting situations".

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18719412
.
That is why I leave IS on at all times - because in many shooting conditions, there is no possible shutter speed that is fast enough to completely and utterly suppress camera movement.
.

.

So, I did not use a statement of totality. . I very carefully made sure that my statement was preceded by a qualification, thereby allowing for exceptions, so that it could not be shown to be wrong. . I'm crafty and careful like that. . That's why folks who argue with me usually don't fare so well
.

Yeah, there are many times when one does not need Image Stabilization - I never said otherwise. . But there are other times that extreme sharpness will suffer a little bit without it, even at very fast shutter speeds.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18719479
.
But Cary, in all fairness to me, you should have included the whole sentence. . You intentionally left off the first part of the sentence, just to make me look bad. . That's not playing fairly, and is mis-representing what I actually said.

I qualified my statement by using the phrase, "in many shooting situations".

.

So, I did not use a statement of totality. . I very carefully made sure that my statement was preceded by a qualification, thereby allowing for exceptions, so that it could not be shown to be wrong. . I'm crafty and careful like that. . That's why folks who argue with me usually don't fare so well
.

.

I didn't intentionally leave that off, I should have included it, that was a mistaken omission, I apologize and tried to repair my last reply. I fixated on the latter part of that. In sports though, specifically track and field, I just have a hard time seeing where a fast shutter (like 2-3x 1/FL) still won't leave you with a clear image when you don't have IS on. But perhaps you are correct, if you are shooting a long lens handheld, and shooting a pole vaulter, even using 1/2000th for a shutter speed just won't be enough to stop your movement. Given the distance they cover in 2 dimensions in a short amount of time, perhaps that would be an issue? Usually you are just panning though. I haven't found any situation in the 3-4 other sports I shoot where this is the case, I have found shutter speeds have indeed negated my movement.

Also in my last image, I showed that a big part might be the shooter themselves. If a person cannot hold a long lens or long focal length pretty steady in whatever position they usually have when doing a shoot, then IS should be on, even with high shutter speeds. I am fortunate to still be able to hold a long lens, aim, manually focus, and shoot without a monopod, tripod, etc and get pretty crisp shots. One day, soon probably, that will end. I have seen my dad when he shoots his little Olympus, and I can see I am going to develop a shake assuming it is in my genetics. If I am still shooting sports here in about 5-10 years from now, I am quite sure my story will change, IS will be on all the time.

Not sure why my exif isn't complete on that image? It is a 100% crop and was at 1/250th, 1200mm, to really drive this last point home.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18719486
In sports though, specifically track and field .....

I wasn't talking about sports specifically, just image-making in general. . I tend to go straight to the actual topic and title of a post, and don't limit my responses to scenarios within the sub-forum to which the thread is posted. . In other words, I don't give sports-specific responses, even if the thread is located within the Sports Talk sub-forum.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18719486
In sports though, specifically track and field, I just have a hard time seeing where a fast shutter (like 2-3x 1/FL) still won't leave you with a clear image when you don't have IS on. But perhaps you are correct, if you are shooting a long lens handheld, and shooting a pole vaulter, even using 1/2000th for a shutter speed just won't be enough to stop your movement.

Oh, I am sure that a fast shutter speed like that will "stop movement" to a generally acceptable degree, and give you a "clear shot". But what it probably won't give you is absolutely perfect resolution of super-fine detail.

What if, when looking at your pole-vaulting image after the fact, you want to zoom in to the shirt that the pole vaulter is wearing and see the individual threads in the fabric? I don't think you would get that kind of super-fine detail without IS, especially at 600mm or 800mm.

Of course, in many/most situations, you probably wouldn't get that degree of resolved detail anyway, even with IS. But what if every now and then IS allowed you to resolve super-fine detail such as the threads in the main body of a shirt, or the super-fine pores in an athlete's skin? Or to see the difference between 5 o'clock shadow and 7 o'clock shadow? Wouldn't you want to have all of the super-fine detail that is possible? Maybe not.

Maybe what most people want is just a "clear shot" that looks good at 20" by 30" or smaller ...... and so what if it will lack a little tiny bit of insignificant detail if printed HUGE? Maybe that's the mindset of many sports shooters, but it isn't the mindset of some wildlife photographers. Every tiny little hair and feather segment is a big big deal and can have an enormous impact on how the photographer feels about their image. Perhaps some sports shooters are just as picky?

.

I would think wildlife shooters (doing some of that myself) would be very picky for details. Sports shooters don't have to be quite so discerning, as most sports players don't have feather detail, but we still want detail, like hair, sweat, tattoo detail, jersey detail, etc. What is the typical printed size of wildlife shooters, larger than 20x30?

I am stationary and just following the player. I sit with other sports shooters too, we all sit and pan in football, basketball, etc. There just isn't alot of movement by a shooter. Even if the action is close, the movement is controlled.

The problem of motion is more about not being able to stop the motion of the player, even 1/2000th just isn't enough. You still get motion by the player at these speeds, especially if you zoom in at 100%.

I wish this example was better, but part of the issue is that I am running a 2x on the 70-200, so details aren't as crisp as they should be, but nothing to do with my movement. Maybe player movement though too... My question is, can you read the manufacturer on that helmet on this partial crop? If I had a Canon prime, the detail would be better, I am sure.

Another example, but this time, no 2x TC, but high ISO, so the same basic negative impacts on IQ are there, but not due to motion. So yes, perhaps we cannot be as critical for detail as many times, we are shooting at higher ISO which takes away a bit of the IQ, and we don't see the micro-movements we have introduced into the image?

However, I doubt the majority of shooters are scrutinizing their images at 100% for minute details and using that as ruler against others' results. It would be a good poll though.

Oh, here is the manufacturer label on the helmet, if I am able to capture that motion at 1/2000th on a 70-200 with 2x with no IS, I am quite happy in my ignorance. Is the detail sharp? Nope, but the fact that I am able to clearly read the label in a 50px wide area on a 30Mpx sensor in these conditions at all is great. The equivalent size of the label is about that of a bird's eye in an image by a wildlife shooter.

IS and sports........ Leave it off ... Why ?

IS Does NOT slow down autofocus as such.... Taking football as an example (soccer if you are one of them ) If you pre focus or track a player IS should not slow anything down..

IS slows down focus Acquisition ..... So again taking football.. If a player takes a free kick and shoots at goal.. I can take a shot of him taking the free kick then quickly focus on the goal keeper and get a pefect shot of him saving or not....... all in maybe a second....... BUT if I had IS on then I would not be able to get that seond shot in time as IS would not aquire the subject quick enough

If you are shooting pictures of a flower pot.. you wont notice. If you are shooting anything that depends on a very fast focus Acquisition then you will notice the lag with IS that ultimatly loses you the shot...

So my advice is .. Your using a fast enough shutter speed anyway.. leave it off..

HTH

On a somewhat related note, I have borrowed a Canon 100-400L IS II for a upcoming cross country meet. There are some points on the course where I will be perpendicular to the runners and they will be crossing in front of me. Would tracking a distance runner be considered panning? Should the IS be switched to mode 2 in those cases or is that more for faster things like motorsports? Thanks.

duckster wrote in post #18730068
On a somewhat related note, I have borrowed a Canon 100-400L IS II for a upcoming cross country meet. There are some points on the course where I will be perpendicular to the runners and they will be crossing in front of me. Would tracking a distance runner be considered panning? Should the IS be switched to mode 2 in those cases or is that more for faster things like motorsports? Thanks.

I don't think it matter much at low panning speeds. I only go to mode 2 if I'm panning for something fast like a plane. Try it both ways.

Thanks

duckster wrote in post #18730068
On a somewhat related note, I have borrowed a Canon 100-400L IS II for a upcoming cross country meet. There are some points on the course where I will be perpendicular to the runners and they will be crossing in front of me. Would tracking a distance runner be considered panning? Should the IS be switched to mode 2 in those cases or is that more for faster things like motorsports? Thanks.

The 100-400 II has 3 modes of IS. Worth considering the Mode 3 IS which has not been mentioned yet in this thread.

http: www.learn.usa.canon.co​m/resources/articles/2​011/updates_supertelep​hoto_article.shtml

Newly Added IS Mode 3: The new IS II super-telephoto lenses are the first to introduce Canon’s new IS Mode 3. This new stabilization mode is similar to IS Mode 2 in the respect that it can detect and correct for panning by shutting off IS correction in the panning direction, but the difference is that IS correction occurs only during the actual exposure in IS Mode 3. (As in IS Modes 1 and 2, camera shake and panning detection occurs whenever the shutter button is pressed halfway.) As a result, the image in the viewfinder moves more naturally while panning, and battery power is conserved. This feature is expected to be welcomed by sports photographers as well as those who photograph birds in flight.*

Improved Operation in IS Mode 2: A revised control algorithm reduces the occurrence of unnatural movement in the viewfinder during panning sequences. This maximizes the performance of the Image Stabilizer in a variety of common shooting conditions, and it is effective for video as well as still captures.


If you have the option of Mode 3 IS, discussing IS without mentioning Mode 3 is close to pointless. Any talk of stabilised viewfinder, focus acquisition, focus assistance or hinderance, time for IS to 'spin up' does not apply.

No offence meant to you for not mentioning it until now or any responders, just being factual.

Regarding Mode 2, it is for panning, not panning above a certain speed.

Thanks for that info. I was talking about mode 2 but I can see how mode 3 might be a good choice. On this XC course, there are a couple of spots where you can only really get perpendicular shots as the runners come past. I prefer to be in front and shoot as the runners come towards me but not possible at every spot.

somewhat related, I shoot only basketball (now high school level) and I am no where near professional or anything of the sort, however I am now considering the 50-100 1.8 which does NOT have IS or OS or whatever they call it and from everything I gather I don't believe IS in basketball is necessary. I usually shoot at 1/500 and slightly higher now and even with the rule of thumb, on my 70-200, this should be no problem without IS.
I am going to try turning it off next game this week and see if the results are any different although I would have to agree if it doesn't help at these shutter speeds then there is no reason to leave it on as it can only hurt not help?
As Teamspeed mentioned, even in my son's high school games there are many times where I too just see action beginning and lift up the camera and shoot rather quickly so even a split second of IS engaging could be the difference of missing the shot or blurring the shot. I still get many blurry shots and now I'm beginning to wonder if the IS might actually be hurting these situations.

As I understand it, IS is really intended for when hand-holding at low shutter speed (for guidance, a shutter speed less than the focal length - e.g. 200mm lens, less than 1/200th shutter speed) so highly unlikely to ever be needed for sports unless you are playing around with arty movement type images. I've used the horizontal one for panning motor sports, but realistically virtually never used it at all!