before IS was invented...

oaktree wrote in post #4935204
Before IS was invented, I was younger, had a steadier stance and used my tripod. Now I'm in my mid-60s, much less steady, still use my tripod and all my zooms have IS. Life is good.

About 2 months ago, I went to a dimly lit koto concert with my 17-55/2.8 IS and 135/2.0. SInce I wanted to move around, I "sat" along the back row. The 17-55 was too short, so I used the 135mm, ISO 1600 and 1/30-1/60.

I used every trick I could think of to steady myself: Leaning against the back wall, sitting on the stairs forming a "tripod" with my body and two arms leaning on my knees. I got less than half of the shots in focus.

Surely focus has nothing to do with holding the camera steady?

Roy Mathers wrote in post #4935235
Surely focus has nothing to do with holding the camera steady?

I'm using "out of focus" as a generic term to cover blurry looking shots due to camera shake (135mm at 1/30-1/60) OR difficulty in focusing due to low light. Usually, the 135L focuses OK in low light.

Most of the blurry shots were due to shaking since there wasn't a plane of "focus" within the shot. A few were "out of focus" since I could see sharpness behind or in front of the main subject.

oaktree wrote in post #4935323
I'm using "out of focus" as a generic term to cover blurry looking shots due to camera shake (135mm at 1/30-1/60) OR difficulty in focusing due to low light. Usually, the 135L focuses OK in low light.

Most of the blurry shots were due to shaking since there wasn't a plane of "focus" within the shot. A few were "out of focus" since I could see sharpness behind or in front of the main subject.

Yes, but how many Budweisers did you have?:p

Seriously, I cannot handhold my 135L below 1/125 with 100% confidence shot to shot no matter how I brace.

All this "learn technique and shoot like a pistol expert blah blah" is fine and all that....but if it were that easy every one of us would be an expert pistol shot. Most of us are not, and we like IS just fine thank you very much.

I want IS in my body now, so that my primes are stabilized. Canon can keep the lens IS for the long stuff since they claim it is more effective, but body IS would be great. There is no denying that.

Double Negative wrote in post #4923778
So true, gardengirl.

IS is great, but it's not a miracle cure. You should learn and practice proper lens technique and use IS to further help you... Not just set your lens on IS and fire away. There's using and embracing technology and then there's being lazy and relying on technology to do your job FOR you.

I think we'd have a LOT less "Is my lens soft?" and "I have a bad copy" posts around here that way.

Agreed

IS opens up new ideas IMO. Slow shutter speeds is broad daylight for aviation. Eg. 1/50th @ 300mm (yes, I did get a good shot like this and someone even bought it)

IS adds to high ISO/leaning against things. So instead being limited to 1/15th @ 17mm I can go to 1/5th

lets face it IS was invented so that highly stressed photographers could drink more coffee and not worry about the shakes from the caffeine effecting the image

If you don't hear from me for a while, it's because I'm out looking for shops having both the Bud and the one-dollar kit over the same counter...

[QUOTE=JeffreyG;493540​6]

Seriously, I cannot handhold my 135L below 1/125 with 100% confidence shot to shot no matter how I brace.

Yep, you're right. As I added to my first post, this would have been a good time to have a 70-200/2.8 IS.

e r y k wrote in post #4921625
what did people do?

i wasted a lot of film.

supercoupon.com makes the diff betw IS and non-IS 70-200 2.8L only $329 so i just had to go for it. and at over 3 lbs. i'll need all the help i can get.

You and me both . And that medium format stuff was NOT cheap.

sneakerpimp wrote in post #4938074
i wasted a lot of film......

Yea, they should start making the Canon bodies with built-in IS. Though they probably won't make it any time soon because they make a heck of a lot of money selling lenses that do have IS. A lot of people say they rather the bodies didn't have it, but who are they to say that considering most of them have never actually tried a body (such as the Sony) that has built in IS. I'm sure if Canon ever did make it, everyone who said they didn't want it are going to instantly upgrade whatever they had to the IS version bodies even though they had previously said they didn't like IS bodies.

I am in favor of IS

Sure I shot prior to IS but, I also shot with cut film and flashbulbs and I mixed my own chemicals. We have come a long way from that technology. I don't use dial telephones, 45 and 33 RPM phonograph records and straight pens with an ink well. Technology has allowed me to advance past those tools.

Let me preface this post by saying that I am a firm supporter of IS.

Photographers who are biased against IS capability in lenses often base their bias on several premises which are only partially true or completely untrue.

The premises are:

1. Only photographers who are ignorant of proper camera holding techniques or who are too lazy to implement these techniques need IS.

2. A tripod or a monopod will totally eliminate the need for IS.

3. IS is not any good in shooting sports and other moving subjects.

4. The extra stop of an f/2.8 lens will compensate for not having IS over an f/4 lens.

5. And finally that the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS lens doesn’t provide as good IQ as the non-IS version of that lens.

These premises are either wrong or partially incorrect.

• I don’t know why some posters automatically assume that photographers who take advantage of IS technology are not competent. There is no proof to that premise and in my case, I know that it is false.
  
  
  
• I certainly agree that monopods or tripods will provide a solid firm support for an camera. However, the use of either of these supports is not always possible and/or desirable. In my case, I carry my 70-200mm f/4L IS everywhere I shoot. I use it to shoot people, animals and landscapes. There are many times when a tripod would be impossible to use or even prohibited from use. A monopod provides more flexibility and is great when you are shooting sports with a longer lens. In my case however, I don’t want to be encumbered with a monopod at times (and there are other times when I will happily use one). I also usually shoot with at least two cameras. Using a monopod would lessen the versatility of switching lenses by simply switching from one camera to another. I would need to mount and remount the camera which I was using because, I couldn’t leave the monopod mounted camera standing alone. I use my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens 3-4x more often than I ever used my non-IS version of that lens – simply because I can hand hold the IS version so much better. Additionally, with the new generation IS in the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens; I can (if needed) rely on a slightly lighter tripod. I have found that the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens matched with a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens makes a great general purpose and travel combination.
  
  
  
• I grant that IS will not stop a moving subject but, there are many images in sports that are not of fast moving subjects. Additionally, a sharp background with a subject blurred by some motion can give the illusion of fast motion in some images,. Finally, I (and I assume many other photographers) do not use my lens solely for subjects in motion. If in available light shooting, your total frame is fuzzy, it doesn't matter if your principal subject has motion coused blur.
  
  
  
• I can shoot my lens at 200mm using 1/60 second at f/4 and be assured of almost 100% sharp imagery. At 1/30 second, the keeper rate is lower but still very acceptable. In a lighting level where I would shoot at 1/60 second at f/4, I could shoot at 1/120 second at f/2.8. And, when I shoot at 1/30 second at f/4, I could shoot at 1/60 second at f/2.8. I can’t hand hold a 200mm lens at 1/120 second with a certainty of sharp images and I cannot get sharp imagery at all hand holding at 1/60 second.
  
  
  
• Although the IS version of the 70-200mm f/2.8L lens is said to produce IQ inferior to the non-IS version of that lens; I seriously doubt if you could accurately pick out which images were shot with which lens. Conversely, while the IS version of the f/4L lens is said to produce better IQ than the non-IS version – I also don’t think you could pick out which image is shot with which lens. The images from a 70-200mm "L" series lens of any type is damned good.
  
  

IS is wonderful. I suffer from benign tremors (slight but uncontollable shaking of the hands) these days and it helps me immeasurably. This was my first camera back in the fifties:

http://www.pbase.com …age/91854372/or​iginal.jpg

It's a great little piece of equipment but I have no desire to turn back the the clock. I'll keep my IS. And my autofocus. And my digital postprocessing. I don't even want to use my sliderule anymore. And this PC is a lot handier than when I was flipping switches, then using paper tape, then punch cards ... And real programmers only code in machine language ... ah, the good ol' days.

Dave

RPCrowe wrote in post #4938354
Sure I shot prior to IS but, I also shot with cut film and flashbulbs and I mixed my own chemicals. We have come a long way from that technology. I don't use dial telephones, 45 and 33 RPM phonograph records and straight pens with an ink well. Technology has allowed me to advance past those tools.

Let me preface this post by saying that I am a firm supporter of IS.

Photographers who are biased against IS capability in lenses often base their bias on several premises which are only partially true or completely untrue.

The premises are:

1. Only photographers who are ignorant of proper camera holding techniques or who are too lazy to implement these techniques need IS.

2. A tripod or a monopod will totally eliminate the need for IS.

3. IS is not any good in shooting sports and other moving subjects.

4. The extra stop of an f/2.8 lens will compensate for not having IS over an f/4 lens.

5. And finally that the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS lens doesn’t provide as good IQ as the non-IS version of that lens.

These premises are either wrong or partially incorrect.

• I don’t know why some posters automatically assume that photographers who take advantage of IS technology are not competent. There is no proof to that premise and in my case, I know that it is false.
  
• I certainly agree that monopods or tripods will provide a solid firm support for an camera. However, the use of either of these supports is not always possible and/or desirable. In my case, I carry my 70-200mm f/4L IS everywhere I shoot. I use it to shoot people, animals and landscapes. There are many times when a tripod would be impossible to use or even prohibited from use. A monopod provides more flexibility and is great when you are shooting sports with a longer lens. In my case however, I don’t want to be encumbered with a monopod at times (and there are other times when I will happily use one). I also usually shoot with at least two cameras. Using a monopod would lessen the versatility of switching lenses by simply switching from one camera to another. I would need to mount and remount the camera which I was using because, I couldn’t leave the monopod mounted camera standing alone. I use my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens 3-4x more often than I ever used my non-IS version of that lens – simply because I can hand hold the IS version so much better. Additionally, with the new generation IS in the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens; I can (if needed) rely on a slightly lighter tripod. I have found that the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens matched with a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens makes a great general purpose and travel combination.
  
• I grant that IS will not stop a moving subject but, there are many images in sports that are not of fast moving subjects. Additionally, a sharp background with a subject blurred by some motion can give the illusion of fast motion in some images,. Finally, I (and I assume many other photographers) do not use my lens solely for subjects in motion. If in available light shooting, your total frame is fuzzy, it doesn't matter if your principal subject has motion coused blur.
  
• I can shoot my lens at 200mm using 1/60 second at f/4 and be assured of almost 100% sharp imagery. At 1/30 second, the keeper rate is lower but still very acceptable. In a lighting level where I would shoot at 1/60 second at f/4, I could shoot at 1/120 second at f/2.8. And, when I shoot at 1/30 second at f/4, I could shoot at 1/60 second at f/2.8. I can’t hand hold a 200mm lens at 1/120 second with a certainty of sharp images and I cannot get sharp imagery at all hand holding at 1/60 second.
  
• Although the IS version of the 70-200mm f/2.8L lens is said to produce IQ inferior to the non-IS version of that lens; I seriously doubt if you could accurately pick out which images were shot with which lens. Conversely, while the IS version of the f/4L lens is said to produce better IQ than the non-IS version – I also don’t think you could pick out which image is shot with which lens. The images from a 70-200mm "L" series lens of any type is damned good.

An f/2.8 lens might be better for some sports shooting than an f/4 lens because of a more shallow depth of field but, that has nothing to do with IS or no IS.

Therefore, I contend that price is the only negative factor in selecting or not selecting IS equipped lenses and the IS is well worth the extra cost to me.

Pretty much agree with everything here although I'd say that a 2.8 lens IS better than an f4 lens for sports because you get that extra stop to allow twice the shutter speed of the f4 - therefore better able to freeze motion. Again as you say this is nothing to do with IS either.

disboifan wrote in post #4921841
they used this ... http://www.switched.co​m …tabilizer-for-any-camera/

I standardized on a Bogen QR plate and Bogen 488 RC2 heads.
The plates have a meal loop or ring on the bottom of them.
Since all my tripod collars and camera bodies have a plate attached...I use a dog leash. Always have on in my holster bags or vests...just in case I don't have a monopod/tripod with me.

I have it but do I need it? Not all the time. Do I want it? YUP.