IS needed for sports?

I vote YES on the IS for sports. No not for the action pictures but the cheerleaders,fans, or sideline pictures that do not need a fast ss.

mensur wrote in post #10632247
This is exactly what I thought originally. So what then is the point of turning it off? Sure, it may not help at high shutter speeds but I can't see why it would hurt either.

Every thing that you camera/lens is doing that is controlled by the computer taxes the resources of the processor which takes away time that it could be doing more critical things like accurate, fast auto focus. The more things you don't need the processor to do the more available processing time to do the things you want.

With that said, I am a big fan of IS lenses because they give me that much more flexibility in other photographic situations. Ex being able to use a 400 f/2.8 at 1/100 at a wedding to take a shot that nobody else could ever capture.

Big K wrote in post #10635269
Every thing that you camera/lens is doing that is controlled by the computer taxes the resources of the processor which takes away time that it could be doing more critical things like accurate, fast auto focus. The more things you don't need the processor to do the more available processing time to do the things you want

Does IS use the camera's processor? I thought it was a passive system wholly contained within the lens. It uses battery power from the camera certainly, but I thought that was it.

peterbj7 wrote in post #10636873
Does IS use the camera's processor? I thought it was a passive system wholly contained within the lens. It uses battery power from the camera certainly, but I thought that was it.

That's what I thought too. It's basically just a gyroscope.

peterbj7 wrote in post #10636873
Does IS use the camera's processor? I thought it was a passive system wholly contained within the lens. It uses battery power from the camera certainly, but I thought that was it.

You are right. I did some additional research last night and found I had my technologies confused. I was thinking of the IS used by a lot of P&S cameras that actually adjusts the sensor to compensate. IS in most DSLR lens applications is internal to the lens and does not draw on the camera processor.

It can come in handy sometimes.

1/80s 1250iso 300 2.8 hand held from the middle of a room, so nothing to lean on.

Given the choice I would go non IS on my 300 and save some money though.

HTTP response: 404 | Byte size: ZERO

When it comes to IS I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. I'm currently re-jigging my lens lineup for this very reason, not to mention the fact that I don't have very steady hands.

Specifically for sports, the question has been answered. But since most of us shoot more than just sports, I think IS is a valuable tool to have in your arsenal.

$.0206 (Canadian exchange rate)

13inches wrote in post #10666402
When it comes to IS I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. I'm currently re-jigging my lens lineup for this very reason, not to mention the fact that I don't have very steady hands.

Specifically for sports, the question has been answered. But since most of us shoot more than just sports, I think IS is a valuable tool to have in your arsenal.

$.0206 (Canadian exchange rate)

I agree with this, espically since If I buy a lens with out IS, it's just time before I want to take advantage of that feature.

Big K wrote in post #10635269
Every thing that you camera/lens is doing that is controlled by the computer taxes the resources of the processor which takes away time that it could be doing more critical things like accurate, fast auto focus. The more things you don't need the processor to do the more available processing time to do the things you want.

Big K wrote in post #10636944
You are right. I did some additional research last night and found I had my technologies confused. I was thinking of the IS used by a lot of P&S cameras that actually adjusts the sensor to compensate. IS in most DSLR lens applications is internal to the lens and does not draw on the camera processor.

Even if IS wasn't on the lens and there was a built-in mechanism to compensate for handshake on the sensor, you would still be wrong. You are assuming that there is a single processor on the camera responsible for all camera features and it is operating via a time shared multitasking mechanism.