is there any reason to disable VR in Nikon lenses?

Question

Perhaps it is safer to storage/carry lenses with VR disabled or may be with very small shorted speed VR decrease quality of picture.

Asked by yura

Answer

For storage you don't have to disable VR, but you should wait for the VR system to be disengaged (take your finger off the shutter release and wait a few seconds) before turning off the camera and removing the lens. This isn't critical, but if you wait, the VR elements will lock in place and not rattle around as the lens is moved. See article here: Removing a VR lens from a camera.

Thom Hogan2 says it better than I could - basically you ought to leave VR off until you have a situation where it is needed: for example, at high shutter speeds (1/500th and faster) VR may decrease IQ as the vibration reduction frequency may be slower than the shutter speed and be out of sync, and for many VR lenses, you should switch off VR if you are using a tripod. So better to switch it on when needed, rather than leaving it on all the time - good advice I think.

Answered by MikeW

Check more discussion of this question.

What's the difference between the lenses EF-S 18-55 DC III and EF-S 18-55 IS II?

Question

I'm planning on purchasing a Canon 1100D with an image stabilized lens.

However, I've found two offers with different lenses. Can you explain to me the difference?

1. Canon EOS 1100D + EF-S 18-55 IS II
2. Canon EOS 1100D + EF-S 18-55 DC III

A similar offer on amazon.de suggests that offer 1 has an image stabilizer, but I don't know about offer 2.

Asked by gentmatt

Answer

Canon's overview for lenses with EF-S mounts does not use the descripton DC. The reason for why several third-party resellers use this description remains unclear to me

This list on Wikipedia suggests that the DC version of the lense is the basically the same, but without image stabilization.

Block diagrams

(source: Canon)

EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 III

EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II

Description

(source: Canon)

EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 III

The Canon EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 III is a lightweight, compact standard zoom lens specifically for cameras that take EF-S lenses. Featuring a high-precision aspherical lens element, the lens compensates for chromatic aberrations that can occur while zooming to deliver high-resolution, high-contrast imaging performance. Through optimized lens positioning and coatings, the model greatly minimizes the flare and ghosting commonly associated with digital camera photography. It is a worthy successor to the EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II and features a revamped external design.

EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II

The new Canon EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II inherits the highly regarded optical design utilized in its predecessor, the EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, released in September 2007. Featuring a high-precision aspherical lens element, the lens compensates for chromatic aberrations that can occur while zooming to deliver high-resolution, high-contrast imaging performance. Through optimized lens positioning and coatings, the model greatly minimizes the flare and ghosting commonly associated with digital camera photography. Furthermore, the EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II includes an optimized control algorithm that has been aligned with the Image Stabilizer structure and characteristics, achieving image stabilization equivalent to approximately four shutter-speed stops.

Based on a shutter speed of "1/(focal length x 1.6)" seconds, considered the limit to prevent hand shake during hand-held photography.

Answered by gentmatt

Check more discussion of this question.

Can I damage an IS lens by moving it too quickly?

Question

The other day, I was using my Canon 500D with the EF-S 55-250 IS lens. A couple of times after focusing I tried to recompose the picture, and noticed the image in the view finder suddenly shifted.

I'm assuming this was caused by the IS mechanism trying to keep the image stabilized, and then all of a sudden giving up as I moved the camera too far and too quickly.

I'm guessing this is something I want to try to avoid, but could I actually damage the lens by doing this?

Asked by Tom Jefferys

Answer

I very much doubt you can damage the lens in this way, the glass that the IS system moves is designed to be very light so as to have low inertial stiffness so it can move quickly and accurately. This same trait means it should be able to move against any momentum you put into the lens.

Empirically having seen the way some people abuse their super-teles (300 & 400 f/2.8) I think Canon would have had it by now if their IS system wasn't robust.

Answered by Matt Grum

Check more discussion of this question.

What is the difference between in-lens image stabilizing and in-sensor image stabilizing?

Question

And which one is more effective?

Asked by spinodal

Answer

In lens stabilisation contains a servo activated rear element which acts to move the image projected by the lens in order to cancel out the camera shake.

In body stabilisation moves the sensor in order to counter camera shake.

No method is clearly better, and discussion tends to turn into a brand war as Canon and Nikon don't offer (and are not likely to offer) a body based solution, and therefore must adopt/reinforce the view than in-lens is better.

In lens stabilisation:

• Can be tuned to the requirements of a specific lens. Telephoto lenses are likely to show a different pattern of blur (more linear, over a shorter time period) than wider angles, which have to stabilise the image for longer, where an oscillatory motion may be present.

• The in-lens method stabilises what you see in the viewfinder for easier composition.

• You can get hybrid systems that counter both angular and translational movement, which is important when the distance the subject is small. Currently the only exmaple is Canon's 100mm f/2.8L macro.

• Works with all bodies, including film / older digital bodies, however most people have more lenses than bodies!

In body stabilisation

• Provides stabilisation for every lens you mount, even old MF designs. Since stabilised lenses are almost always more expensive and stabilisation only exists on certain models this is a considerable plus.

• No extra elements in the optical path to potentially flare or disperse light.

• Can correct rotational movement and can automatically level the horizon.

• Astronomical tracking mount like features are available on some models (such as the Pentax K-5, thanks John).

I've seen some tests that indicate the in lens stabilisation can perform better, however you do have to pay for it in every lens, see Image Stabilization Testing on SLRgear. It makes sense to me than in lens could perform slightly better as you're comparing a system designed for a specific focal length to a system that has to try and work in every situation. There's no reason in principle you couldn't have in-body stabilisation and then turn it off and use in-lens for some lenses for maximum performance.

Answered by Matt Grum

Check more discussion of this question.

How much different are the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 stabilized (VC) and non-stabilized versions?

Question

I have seen these 2 lenses being suggested by many people across the site as general purpose zooms and an upgrade to the typical 18-55mm kit lenses. The price difference seems to be around $200 (~INR 10,000) between the two. The lenses are also considerably cheaper than their Canon\Nikon counterparts.

Having using the stabilized kit lens on Canon, I appreciate the importance of IS\VC for slow shutter speeds (not just low light, but also for effects). However, quite a few reviews seem to suggest that the non-VC version seems to be better optically overall. There seem to be more quality control issues with the VC version as well.

My question is two fold:

1. How do the 2 lenses compare against each other - is the premium for the VC version worthwhile for the quality trade-off?
2. How do the 2 compare to the Canon stabilized kit lens (EF-S 18-55mm IS) in terms of optical quality - are they worthwhile upgrades? (there is a similar question for Nikon)

Answer

I have the VC version (Nikon mount). I have tested it alongside my 50mm prime and found it to be just as sharp at f/3.2. It is very slightly softer at f/2.8, but only when looking at an artificial test pattern. That's one person's opinion based on a sample of one.

I have tested other non-professional zoom lenses (Nikon and Sigma) and the Tamron is far, far sharper than any of them. Unbelievably so.

A camera shop owner I know recommended the non-VC version as being very sharp and reliable (and inexpensive). He didn't say it was worth buying the non-VC version over the VC version. He just recommended it highly as a fantastic value. He did say he'd also sold a lot of the VC version and hadn't noticed any quality control issues.

Because the lens is sharp wide open, VC isn't really vital except in low light. I would say the VC is probably not worth the premium unless you intend to shoot a lot of low-light or indoors work without flash.

Can't help with the comparison to the Canon 18-55mm. I would imagine from what I've found compared to other Nikon equivalents that the Tamron will be noticeably sharper, especially wide open. You can use it at 2.8 or 3.2, whereas the Canon probably needs to be stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8 to be at its sharpest.

Check more discussion of this question.

Where does the ¹/shutter speed = focal length rule for hand shake come from?

Question

The generally accepted rule of thumb is that the shutter speed must be the same or larger than the inverse of the focal length.

As is, it seems that it makes no sense as is:

1. On a 24 Mpixels full-frame camera, at 100%, the blur from camera movement will be more visible than on a 10 Mpixels full-frame camera.

2. A photo intended to be printed small can have slight blur at 100%: nobody will see it when scaled down for printing. When doing a high-quality large print, even a small blur will be noticeable.

3. Image stabilization (vibration reduction) affects the blur when shooting handheld.

4. The blur will not be the same on a cropped vs. full-frame sensor.

I imagine that the rule of thumb appeared first when there was no DSLRs yet, and photographers were talking about SLRs with 35mm film. Is this that fact that makes the three of four points irrelevant? If yes, what about the second point? If not, what is the origin of this rule?

Answer

I did some quick Google Books searches, and while I can't pinpoint the origin, there are a number of references to it as a rule of thumb or general guideline in the early 1970s, and none that I can find before that. There are plenty of earlier references to the idea that a longer focal length requires a faster shutter but they're all general advice.

The first reference I find is from Popular Photography in 1972:

A rule that will help you determine the slowest hand-held shutter speed to use is: place the number one over the focal length of the lens (in millimeters). For example, with a 100-mm lens, one over 100 is ¹⁄₁₀₀ (¹⁄₁₂₅ would be the closest speed to set); with a 250-mm lens, the rule gives ¹⁄₂₅₀ sec. Use this rule as a guide. You may be able to hold for somewhat slower speeds if you're steady and your camera holding technique is good. If you're shaky, you may have to shoot at a faster speed than the rule indicates. Experience will tell this. If in doubt, use a tripod or other firm support and a cable release, when possible.

A year or so later, I found this

You can minimize or completely eliminate camera movement if you remember this rule: For hand-held shooting, don't use a shutter speed any slower than the focal length of the lens. The normal lens on a 35mm camera is is 50 to 55mm. When using this lens, set the shutter at ¹⁄₆₀th second. ... — Walter Chandoha, How to Photograph Cats, Dogs, and Other Animals, Crown Publishers, 1973

I doubt that either of these is the first occurance, though. There's a whole bunch of examples from around the same time, like this:

A rule of thumb is to use a shutter speed at least as high as the focal length of the lens: a 60th for the 50mm, 125th for the 105mm, 250th for the 200mm, and so on. But experience may show you are steadier or shakier than this rule assumes. — Robert Foothorap and Vickie Golden, Independent Photography: a biased guide to 35mm technique and equipment for the beginner, the student, and the artist, Simon and Schuster, 1975

So, I don't know exactly where it came from, but it's definitely an idea for 35mm film, and it's clear that in its early form, it was seen as a general guide, not a law.

Check more discussion of this question.

Will I regret buying an older lens that doesn't autofocus or have image stabilization with my Nikon D5000?

Question

I am planning to buy a Nikon Normal AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Autofocus Lens.

It doesn't autofocus on the D5000 but for the price, I think it's a good choice of lens for portrait.

What do you think? Will I regret the fact that it doesn't have AutoFocus, neither VR?

Answer

VR: I don't think VR matters at all for portraits, where you can control the lighting to make sure you have a suitably fast shutter speed (1/125 or 1/250) to avoid blur due to camera shake.

AF: This depends on how good you are at focusing manually. For portraits with shallow depth of field (wide aperture), it's critical to make sure that one or both of the eyes is in perfect focus. If you can do this manually, then by all means, go for the manual focus lens.

Before buying, you can try manually focusing on one of the lenses you already have, and then check your focus by looking at the full-size image on your computer. I often find that I've missed by a bit when focusing manually, but some people are quite good.

Check more discussion of this question.

Should I keep Image Stabilization (IS) off when I do not actually need it?

Question

I own a Canon 7D and a EF-S 15-85 IS lens and I keep the image stabilization turned on all the time.

Recently, an experienced photographer told me that this is a huge mistake because it reduces image quality overall.

Except the battery draining, is there any evidence that using IS the image quality will be reduced?

Thank you :)

Answer

I don't know how it works with this lens, but I've seen charts for Pentax's in-body stabilization system where the data shows that contrary to conventional wisdom I.S. gives a (decreasing but still there) benefit up until rather high shutter speeds, at which point it doesn't matter (and doesn't make things worse).

If you have the camera on a very steady tripod, though, off is probably better. On a lightweight, wobbly tripod, it may be different.

It's also important to keep in mind that the stabilization takes time to engage and "settle" — typically half a second or so after you half-press the shutter button. If you have it on, make sure to allow that time.

Update: I don't think these are the charts I remember, but they show the same thing and are quite well done: How can I determine the minimum shutter speed to avoid blur from camera shake?.

Check more discussion of this question.

Do vibration-resistant lenses need tripods for ultra-sharp landscapes?

Question

Does it make sense to use vibration-resistant lenses for ultra-sharp landscapes?

I mean when the F is 16, we'll have to lower the shutter speed to a great deal.

So, if I use a VR lens, will I still require a tripod or will the VR lens handle the hand shaking on its own to a great deal?

Answer

The rule of thumb is you can hand hold a 50mm lens at 1/50th second, or a 100mm at 1/100th second and have reasonable lack of camera shake. VR extends that a few stops. So it depends on the amount of light.

In bright sunlight, at f/16 and a 35mm lens, you wouldn't need a tripod or VR.

In low light, VR won't be enough, you'll need a tripod

In between there will be a few instances where you could make use of VR, where hand- holding would not really be possible, but there is enough light that with VR you can get a decent image. But as the light fades you'll have to increase to f/8 and f/5.6 because VR won't be enough when the shutter speed drops to 1/8th second.

You can steady the camera against a tree or rock or car window if you don't have a tripod, but as a general rule I'd say a tripod is more useful to landscape photography than VR.

Check more discussion of this question.

Slower VR lens vs faster non VR, which one is better for hand held in low light?

Question

I have a Nikkor 18-105mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR lens, and a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 D. The latter is obviously a faster lens and as such better in low light, but (assuming the zoom lens is set to 50mm), which one will actually give me the most usable pictures under practical hand held conditions, considering that the zoom lens has VR?

Answer

The zoom will open up to a maximum of f/5.6 at 50mm; the prime is f/1.8. That's a little more than three stops difference between them (f/1.8->2 is about 1/3 of a stop, then there's 2.8 and 4 before getting to 5.6). That assumes you're shooting both wide open, but the difference will be the same if you're stopping down the same amount from wide-open on both lenses for sharpness.

The original 18-55VR has been shown in reviews to give a real-world two-stop margin for hand-held pictures; the VRII seems to manage a real-world three stops or slightly better. So the prime would give you about one stop more useful range than your older-model lens, but it would be a coin toss between it and the newer model if both are shot wide open.

However...

..at the same aperture on both lenses (which you would need to get the same depth of field), the prime lens has no advantage at all. If you're shooting at f/8, then you have one 50mm f/8 lens with vibration reduction and one without. The zoom with VR will allow you to hand-hold at slower shutter speeds than you can with the prime if the aperture setting is the same. And while the "nifty fifty" is a really nice, sharp lens, it happens that the 18-55mm zoom is no slouch either.

The difference, then, has more to do with your depth-of-field requirements than the available light level. If you need a shallow depth of field, you can't quite get there with an f/5.6 lens in any case, VR or not. If you are shooting to get lots in focus, then having an f/1.8 maximum aperture is no advantage (well, except that the viewfinder image will be ten times as bright -- and that can be enough sometimes).

Check more discussion of this question.

Is it necessary to turn off lens-based VR before turning off the camera?

Question

I just bought a D3100 and started reading its manual. On the lens' Vibration Reduction chapter it said that the VR should be turned off before turning off the camera, every time I use it. Is it really necessary? Why?

I think the manual said it had to do with the lens stability, after the camera is turned off...

Answer

It depends on the lens, but it's a god habit to get into. Doing a "safe shut-down" ritual on a lens that doesn't need it has far fewer consequences than skipping the step on a lens that does.

In-lens optical stabilisation systems work by floating one or more lens elements under the control of servo motors. While VR (or IS, or whatever the brand name is on your camera) is active, there is no firm mechanical connection between the lens's stabilisation element(s) and the body of the lens -- it's essentially free to flop around inside the body if the motors aren't running. If you shut off stabilisation on the lens while the camera is still powered up, the element is returned to a neutral position and mechanically locked in place. If you don't, then the lens is still free, but there's no longer a motor to keep it in place.

Not only does that mean that the lens is less delicate to transport, it also means that if things go wrong and the element gets stuck, you're left with a non-stabilised lens that has all of its elements centred. If the element were to become frozen somewhere outside of its normal range of controlled motion, you'll be left with a lens that is visibly degraded; softness and vignetting will be centred around the lens's optical center, which will no longer be the centre of the image. In other words, you'll have a lens that makes really nice pictures only if you keep the subject, say, left of centre in the image.

I remember a time when we had to run a head-parking routine on hard disk drives before shutting down a computer. It wasn't always necessary, but if the computer were bumped or moved with power off and the heads unparked, there was a good chance that you'd lose your disk. Modern drives (basically everything made since 1993 or so) autopark the heads -- the "park routine" is just a spring, so you don't have to use the motor to move the heads to a safe position. VR/IS lenses will probably be the same as time goes by -- but it's the lens you're using, not the camera, that determines whether you need to let the stabilisation system centre under power or not.

Check more discussion of this question.

Is it true that there are no stabilized prime lenses (and if so, why)?

Question

Fast prime lenses like the Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens work nicely in low-light situations. But I'm quite sure they would work even more nicely if they had optical image stabilizers. It seems to me that no such lenses are available in the Canon system. Is this true? Maybe even for prime lenses in general? If yes, is there a reason for this?

Answer

As of today there are 28 prime lenses with image stabilization. Almost half (13) of them are from Canon and 1 is a Canon-mount Sigma, so I would say your assumption is wrong. This is an easy lens search.

What you will notice is this is less common in the wide focal-length, with the widest stabilized lens being a 45mm Panasonic. This is because longer lenses benefit more from stabilization because they require higher shutter-speeds to give a sharp image.

Take for example a 500mm which would require 1/500s. This stabilization you can take it down to 1/125 or 1/60 even which is still a general purpose shutter-speed. Now take a 50mm which already gives a sharp image at 1/50s, you can bring that down with stabilization to 1/15 or 1/8 even. Those shutter-speeds are not suitable for moving subjects and even grass and leaves will blur. Now, of course, all shutter-speeds are useful, just that you gain more by stabilizing a long lens than a short lens. As a matter of fact, some people ask why certain wide zooms are stabilized, saying it's a waste of money!

Check more discussion of this question.

Why there is no Canon 50mm *IS* lens?

Question

Canon's 50mm prime lenses are all non-IS (Image Stabilization) for some reason. Considering the popularity of these range primes, shouldn't Canon be interested in shipping a new, optically improved IS version?

Answer

There are two main reason why there's little chance we're going to see 50mm IS lens in the near future:

• 50mm lenses tend to be very simple and therefore cheap. Complicating its design with an image stabilizer group would push the price significantly higher, while the added benefit of IS wouldn't be that high at 50mm focal length.

• If you want an expensive and light-hungry 50mm, there's already the huge lump of glass that is EF 50mm f/1.2L. There's not much point in having IS in such fast (and relatively wide) lenses.

Check more discussion of this question.

How can I use image stabilization to make a moving subject clear?

Question

Image stabilizers in digital cameras are available for shooting moving/shaking snapshots clearly. The image stabilizers try to focus the moving object and reduce the shaking. However, I have set the image stabilizer to auto, but still I cant get a proper focus on moving object.

Here's an example: In the picture there is a blurring effect. I want to reduce that.

Now in such cases, are there any other settings (like ISO) to reduce this shaking effect even further, and get clear snapshot? Or, is this the best the image stabilizers can do?

Answer

Image stabilization aims to fix the problem of a moving camera (camera shake).

Your question and example photo aim to fix the problem of a moving subject.

To reduce blur of a moving subject, you need a shorter shutter speed, or you need to freeze the motion with flash.

If you also have camera shake, then image stabilization will help some. But first make sure you take steps to reduce camera shake. For example see the question "How I could take crisp sharp shots without expensive lens?".

Check more discussion of this question.

What features really matter in a point and shoot camera?

Question

I am planning to buy my first new digital camera. Now I am too confused for more than 20 days about how I can choose a camera.

I want to use the camera for domestic purpose.

The Canon IXUS 220 HS looks good but it is only 12 MP and only 5X zoom. But there is a also the Canon A3300 that is 16 MP.

So I don't know what is the basis of selecting a camera. What is Image Stabilization? When should I buy a CMOS sensor camera? How much Optical Zoom is sufficient? How much does noise matter in the camera?What about if the camera has HD video recording, and if not, how much will that lack affect viewing on my 32 inch TV?

The cameras I'm currently looking at are Nikon s3100, Canon IXUS 220 HS, Canon IXUS 110 HS, Canon A3300, and Sony W370/B. This will be my first camera and I can't take any risk because I cannot afford a new one in the next few years.

Answer

I would put the number of megapixels at the bottom of the priority list. Megapixels matter, but once you get past about 10 you'll have enough for anything you're likely to do. In particular there wont be a noticeable difference between 12 and 16, theoretically you'll be able to print a 16MP image 15% larger, but that's only if the lens resolves more detail and that detail is not lost to noise.

Image stabilzation prevents blur due to camera shake when you take a photo. It becomes very important the longer the zoom lens. With a 5x it's probably not important but once you get 10x or more you should definitely look for a stabilized model. How long a zoom you need is really up to you.

All small sensor point and shoot cameras will produce noisy images in low light, it's just something you need to be aware of and plan your shooting accordingly.

HD video is a useful feature, I've seen some really good quality clips from this sort of camera, so if you plan to take videos at all I'd look at one that records HD.

Check more discussion of this question.

Image Stabilization in Lens vs Body: Which is Cheaper?

Question

Is Image Stabilization better in the lens or the body? Someone already asked that.

But I'm trying to make a purchasing decision. It seems that the short answer to my title question is that it's cheaper to put image stabilization in the body since you don't have to pay for it with each lens. But somehow that's not enough for me.

I guess I'm wondering how much cheaper it is. I would think it depends on what kind of equipment I purchase. I'm considering purchasing an entry level DSLR (Canon Rebel EOS T2i or ... preferably cheaper) I would probably stick with no more than two lenses. (I'm thinking one zoom lens and one "regular" lens.)

I'd love to price out two comparable sets of equipment, but I don't know enough about photography to really know if the lenses/cameras are of comparable quality. Can someone suggest a set of lenses cameras for this price comparison?

What brands put image stabilization in the camera?

Answer

You're right! This really depends on the specifics.

For some lenses, like the Pentax Limited series, but basically small prime lenses in general, a lens-based approach just wouldn't be possible at any price. I don't think Canon offers any prime lenses with IS at a focal length under 100mm, and Nikon's 85mm is their only exception to the same rule. Arguably, image stabilization is less important for wider lenses, but the fact remains: if you want image stabilization in a wide or normal prime — or even a short telephoto — in-body is the only way to pay for it.

So, if that appeals to you, in-body is very much the way to go.

If you're just looking to get the setup you describe — one zoom lens with IS and a prime, and you're done, and if you decide that you don't care about IS for the prime, there's really not much of a difference. Either way you're just buying IS one time, and there are some reasonably-priced entry-level zooms with the feature. Even if you buy two such lenses, the price difference due to other factors might be bigger.

If you're looking for a fast, pro telephoto zoom, the situation is different — but not uncomplicated, because we can't compare apples to apples. Canon's image stabilized pro 70-200mm f/2.8 lens is about $1000 more than the non-IS version, and the Nikon equivalents (there, the non-IS version is 80-200mm) have a comparable price spread. But, Sony's equivalent lens is in the ballpark of the pricier choices, and it's hard to tell if the couple-hundred in savings is due to IS or some other decision. And Pentax doesn't even make 70-200mm lens anymore, instead of focusing on the designed-for-APS-C 50-135mm. So is in-body IS a win here? Hard to say!

So, what I'd suggest is to take a look at How much do lens lineups vary across platforms? and the answers there, and think about what you expect your total lens system to look like, and think from there.

But — and I can't stress this enough! — you can't really plan until you get your camera and start shooting and discover what you like. When I decided on a camera brand, I sat down and made a chart of what lenses I would theoretically buy to cover this and that focal range, and plotted out my future purchases. Turns out, I love those tiny prime lenses I mentioned above, of which only one was on my imaginary roadmap. Now that's all I have! (Plus some older Pentax primes and a Lensbaby — also image stabilized.)

And, I value having those primes all stabilized. But if that weren't my thing, it might not be important at all. I have a friend who stretched his budget and immediately started out with the Canon pro-level 24-70mm and 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses (the later with VR), and he's been so happy actually taking photographs that he hasn't once stopped to stress about what other lenses to buy.

Check more discussion of this question.

What software could I use for aligning time lapse stills to remove camera shake?

Question

I've been playing around with some time lapse sequences shot from the roof of our building in New York. It's terribly windy and the resulting sequence exhibits some slight camera shake.

I'm seeking a software solution to align the images to compensate. Note: I don't have PhotoShop.

Answer

Aligning can be done for example with stitching-programs like Hugin.

• add all you pictures to the hugin-project
• let the pictures be analyzed/matched by "align image stack" (Images - Tab: Feature-Matching)
• add some points if needed (Control Points - Tab)
• set optimization to Position and Translation at the most (Optimiser-Tab)
• Optimize (Optimiser-Tab)
• check with "Preview panorama" (button above)
• go to Stitcher-Tab, set Projection to "Rectilinear"
• choose Output as "Remapped images"
• stitch! :D

You will get your pictures remapped into several exactly overlapping ones in the choosen format/size (Stitcher-Tab: Autocrop can remove nonoverlapping borders). It's a nice side-effect and prerequisite of stitching, I used it to create ghost-images (people swinging down a slope: put them five times into one picture), just stitching them together later (using enfuse/enblend on command line).

Hugin can do much more (like every decent stitcher, I guess), for example remove your barrel distortion and also vignetting. Look into optimizations for that.

Check more discussion of this question.

Is Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 stabilized, can it be used for handheld shots?

Question

Has a Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 got an Image Stabiliser? Following an answer to a previous question re my wifes Canon EOS 450D in which Jrista suggested the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 lens rather than the Canon 100mm F/2.8 Macro (the second photograph is stunning). The price of the 100 with IS is not a long way off the cost of a 65, I just wanted to know if the 65 had an Image Stabiliser and if not could she have problems holding it still, with freehand shots?

Answer

No, it does not have IS, but it could still be useful. Image stabilization is just one way to improve you freehand shots, but there are lots of other ways. It is really all just about having a fast enough shutter speed that movement is not noticeable.

Check more discussion of this question.

What is the difference between in-lens image stabilizing and in-sensor image stabilizing?

Question

And which one is better according to the result?

Answer

In lens stabilisation contains a servo activated rear element which acts to move the image projected by the lens in order to cancel out the camera shake.

In body stabilisation moves the sensor in order to counter camera shake.

No method is clearly better, and discussion tends to turn into a brand war as Canon and Nikon don't offer (and are not likely to offer) a body based solution, and therefore must adopt/reinforce the view than in-lens is better.

In lens stabilisation:

• Can be tuned to the requirements of a specific lens. Telephoto lenses are likely to show a different pattern of blur (more linear, over a shorter time period) than wider angles, which have to stabilise the image for longer, where an oscillatory motion may be present.

• The in-lens method stabilises what you see in the viewfinder for easier composition.

• You can get hybrid systems that counter both angular and translational movement, which is important when the distance the subject is small. Currently the only exmaple is Canon's 100mm f/2.8L macro.

• Works with all bodies, including film / older digital bodies, however most people have more lenses than bodies!

In body stabilisation

• Provides stabilisation for every lens you mount, even old MF designs. Since stabilised lenses are almost always more expensive and stabilisation only exists on certain models this is a considerable plus.

• No extra elements in the optical path to potentially flare or disperse light.

• Can correct rotational movement and can automatically level the horizon.

• Astronomical tracking mount like features are available on some models (such as the Pentax K-5, thanks John).

I've seen some tests that indicate the in lens stabilisation can perform better, however you do have to pay for it in every lens, see Image Stabilization Testing on SLRgear. It makes sense to me than in lens could perform slightly better as you're comparing a system designed for a specific focal length to a system that has to try and work in every situation. There's no reason in principal you couldn't have in-body stabilisation and then turn it off and use in-lens for some lenses for maximum performance.

Check more discussion of this question.

Are manufacturers' Image Stabilisation ratings for zoom lenses deceptive?

Question

I've been considering getting an L-series zoom lens, and the two that I am looking at are the Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS, and the 24-70mm f/2.8L.

Aside from the extra reach of the 24-105, the main difference is obviously the f/2.8 aperture versus the active Image Stabilisation.

Canon state that the IS on this lens "permits the use of shutter speeds up to three stops slower than normal". It's the "up to" in this statement that got me thinking about how image stabilisation is rated.

There is a general rule of thumb that your shots should be good (with a steady hand) at shutter speeds of up to 1/focal length, so clearly the focal length is a factor of image stability. Now, I can't imagine that Canon would publish anything but the best numbers for their spec sheets, so this leads me to assume that the "three stops" of IS they quote are at a focal length of 24mm. So my next question is, what does this mean at the 105mm end? I've done a few calculations, and I invite you to check my workings.

3 stops is a linear factor of 8 (2^3). I think this equates to a linear IS factor of 1.83 @105mm (8*24/105). Or, 0.87 stops. Less than 1 stop!

Using the same calculation but for a focal length of 70mm, the IS of the 24-105mm comes out at 1.46 stops.

Do I have my calculations correct?

PS: I know that the increased aperture of the f/2.8 will give greater background blur, better capture of moving subjects, blah, blah... so please don't feel that you have to lecture me on that. All I'm asking about is IS.

Answer

Reverting to some empirical data, the 70-200 f/2.8L II lens has a supposed 4 stops of IS at all focal length. DPreview tested it at 70mm and at 200mm and revealed it had just under 4 stops and 70mm and over 4 stops at 200mm!

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_ii_c16/page5.asp

From the review:

We're used to seeing Canon's latest IS systems do well in our tests, and the 70-200mm F2.8 II doesn't buck that trend. Under these controlled conditions, the IS system is delivering something pretty close to the claimed 4 stops of stabilization (for example, at 70mm we get similar results at 1/5 sec with IS on as at 1/80 sec with it turned off), which is about as good as things get at the time of writing.

Unfortunately they haven't tested the 24-104 IS yet. But both their review and my experience with the 100 f/2.8L macro indicates the actual performance is pretty much in line with the official specs (again, four stops). So I'd be inclined to believe them and expect about 4 stops throughout the range on the 24-105.

Check more discussion of this question.