Image Stabiliser or Fast Aperture
  • kalshort
    Member
    Member
    Posts: 38
    Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 11:08 pm
    Location: Perth
    Contact:

    Image Stabiliser or Fast Aperture

    by kalshort » Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:57 pm

    Image Stabiliser or Fast Aperture, which would you pick, and under what circumstances??
    The only thing wrong with this picture is your head.
  • User avatar
    Dalzine
    Site Admin
    Site Admin
    Posts: 2527
    Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:28 pm
    Location: Sunshine Coast
    Contact:

    by Dalzine » Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:35 pm

    Fast aperture, there's more to it than getting a faster shutter speed in low light.

    Dale.
    Will build websites for 'L' glass.
  • User avatar
    Busiboy
    Site Admin
    Site Admin
    Posts: 3572
    Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:10 pm
    Location: SE Sydney
    Contact:

    by Busiboy » Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:53 pm

    You seem to be asking the same question over and over again.

    I'll take fast apperture and good technique any day.
    *PPOK*
    C&C always welcome

    Scott
  • kalshort
    Member
    Member
    Posts: 38
    Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 11:08 pm
    Location: Perth
    Contact:

    by kalshort » Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:32 pm

    Busiboy wrote:You seem to be asking the same question over and over again.


    Sometimes you have to when you want to be reassured of something. Besides, Im getting different answers from different people (not just talking about posts on this forum), and its amazing how asking the same question in a different ways can also result in a different response, or a more to the point response as it is in this case.

    I appreciate the time and effort you and beeb put in to my queries, I was hoping by posing the question in a simpler/different way I might get comments from others also.

    In case you're interested, I'm all but committed to the 70-200 f2.8 without IS but I am keeping and eye out for second hand options of the IS version.
    The only thing wrong with this picture is your head.
  • User avatar
    Dug
    Senior Photojournalist
    Senior Photojournalist
    Posts: 6240
    Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 9:39 pm
    Location: Heyfield Vic
    Contact:

    by Dug » Wed Jul 04, 2012 11:51 pm

    I find manual image stabilization works well for me.

    Fast glass and hold the camera steady :lol:
    "Photography to the amateur is recreation, to the professional it is work, and hard work too, no matter how pleasurable it may be."

    Edward Weston

    ( Total NIKON bigot )

    PPOK
  • Wasasaw
    Member
    Member
    Posts: 83
    Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:52 am
    Location: Adelaide
    Contact:

    my 2 cents worth

    by Wasasaw » Wed Jul 04, 2012 11:52 pm

    As I see it depends a lot on what you shot. I do predominantly motor sport and for me VR/OS/IS... is pretty much meaningless when the subject is moving and invariably the camera is also. You need fast glass as it and good higher ISO is pretty much where you go in poor light. Slow pans excepted and even here the removal of camera shake is moot.
    On the other hand if you are shooting static in low light I would turn to the VR/OS/IS every time - this is what it excels at - sharp images at previously doubtful shutter speeds when hand held (unless you were a non drinker/smoker/worrier with ice in your veins).
    Anything in between and competence should be the objective.

    Cheers
    Wasa
    Unless I'm very much mistaken, Oh yes I'm very much mistaken
  • User avatar
    Doug
    Reporter
    Reporter
    Posts: 1831
    Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:49 pm
    Location: Adelaide
    Contact:

    by Doug » Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:42 pm

    Image Stabiliser or Fast Aperture, which would you pick, and under what circumstances??


    You want a shallow DOF = fast aperture (portrait)

    Hand held, low light, you want faster shutter speeds, don't want to push ISO any higher = fast aperture (sport)

    Big glass to look cool = fast aperture (poser)

    Hand held, low light, you want broader DOF, don't want to push ISO any higher = Image Stabiliser (general)

    Hand held, you want slower shutter speeds that blur movement but no camera shake = Image Stabiliser (sport, lazy landscape photographer) :)
  • User avatar
    Ken182
    Cadet
    Cadet
    Posts: 868
    Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:27 pm
    Location: SE22 8DF
    Contact:

    by Ken182 » Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:28 am

    Dalzine wrote:Fast aperture, there's more to it than getting a faster shutter speed in low light.

    Dale.


    + 1
    In a forum, no one can hear you scream!

    http://www.kensphotoblog2013.com/
  • User avatar
    kiwiklicks
    Member
    Member
    Posts: 190
    Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:41 pm
    Location: Brisbane / Goldcoast
    Contact:

    Re: Image Stabiliser or Fast Aperture

    by kiwiklicks » Sun Nov 25, 2012 1:46 pm

    I do like this question,
    This is what I was trying to understand a few years ago when I was upgrading my gear.
    70-200 f4L non IS, Used for motorsport. Didnt need the IS but would now like the 70-200 f2.8L
    100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS.
    In hindsight I should have looked at getting a faster aperture tele. The IS is great however in time I realised that it was the faster lens that I actually needed not IS

    Support and technique is important, my shakey hands dont help my cause!

    Good info from all responses
    Speed & Wheels -LOOOVEE IT Fast
    www.jasonharrison.com.au
  • beeb
    Golden Cow
    Golden Cow
    Posts: 1815
    Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:44 pm
    Contact:

    Re: Image Stabiliser or Fast Aperture

    by beeb » Sun Nov 25, 2012 3:20 pm

    I used to rely on IS, but I have worked on my technique (stance and pose mainly to keep myself steadier) and have come to prefer a lens with faster apeture. Most of my lenses are non-IS fast apeture nowadays too also. The faster apetures give a bigger variety of creative options and still helps shooting in low light anyway. Once you adjust, you rarely miss it IMO.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest