SS vs image stablization

Most of us use image stabilized lenses and I was wondering...what shutter speed is required to render IS a moot point and is it dependent on the individual lens' focal length?

I would think it's more dependent on how steady the shooter is.

1/Focal length* crop factor is what I use for a handholding rule of thumb and it usually yeilds a decent shot. I can go a lot lower than that with proper technique and no coffee.

However, even if the IS is compensating for only a small movement it still is helping.

I also usually do the 1/FL*CF for simplicity's sake. I'll probably bump up the shutter speed a little to give me more margin if there's ample light.

When I am well above 1/FL*CF and I am shooting moving subjects, I usually have IS turned off.

I must have phrased my question poorly. I understand the normal "Rule of Thumb" of 1-1.5 SS/focal length suggestions but there has got to be an upper limit of SS that would render the IS irrelevant.
As an example, if one used a 200mm lens on a FF body and had sufficient light for 1/1000 SS...would IS even be necessary? Is there a ratio that would render IS unnecessary?

I think this still would be based more on the shooter rather than an absolute number.

Since IS is just used to mitigate the small movements of the camera by the shooter, some people can actually handhold a 200mm lens at around 1/80 or so...therefore, making IS irrelevant to them.

Conversely, there's me; who gets camera shake at 1/320 @ 200mm without IS. I can generally get away without IS and still be happy with a shot at around 1/500 or so. But my fine motor control was damaged by some anti-seizure meds when I was really young (ironic, huh?).

So I'm not really sure there is a hard and fast answer to your question across the board.

chauncey wrote in post #10209832
As an example, if one used a 200mm lens on a FF body and had sufficient light for 1/1000 SS...would IS even be necessary? Is there a ratio that would render IS unnecessary?

That would probably depend on how steady the shooter is. I don't think you'll find a "ratio" that would work in any general sense.

I drink way too much coffee. I would probably still benefit from IS at 1/8000s

chauncey wrote in post #10209832
I must have phrased my question poorly. I understand the normal "Rule of Thumb" of 1-1.5 SS/focal length suggestions but there has got to be an upper limit of SS that would render the IS irrelevant.
As an example, if one used a 200mm lens on a FF body and had sufficient light for 1/1000 SS...would IS even be necessary? Is there a ratio that would render IS unnecessary?

Chauncey, it sounds like you are asking a technical question, as in how fast does the shutter speed need to be to actually cancel the effects of IS, right? Interesting question but I haven't a clue. A zillion?

chauncey wrote in post #10209832
As an example, if one used a 200mm lens on a FF body and had sufficient light for 1/1000 SS...would IS even be necessary? Is there a ratio that would render IS unnecessary?

Generally speaking, no. IS can actually work against you if you are tracking a moving target. At 200mm and 1/1000, when tracking a subject I would have IS turned off.

Not sure what the rule of thumb on something like that is but generally speaking if I am well above the hand holding limit and if I am tracking a moving subject, then IS = OFF.

With a 70-200/4 IS at 200mm, SLRGear shows improvement all the way to about 1/800 on a 20D, for a shaky person.

http://www.slrgear.com …Canon_70-400mm_f4L_IS.htm

Well put Tony...my literary abilities are on par with my photographic abilities.