Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/06/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]One thing that would get me into a digital Canon is if they redid the RS in a 1DsMkII. I have sharp images taken with the 400 DO at 1/2 second exposures using a pelicle mirror. It took a motor drive and 3 of 5 frames were blurred but two were good: at 1.5 frames per second at that shutter speed you can get some amazing images using an IS lens and being able to see the image during exposure. Don don.dory@gmail.com On 6/21/06, Henning Wulff <henningw@archiphoto.com> wrote: > > >Absolutely...I think three stops may be a bit of an exaggggeration...but > >definitely 1.5 to 2. And that makes a 2.8 lens a 1.4 > > > > > >On 6/21/06 2:07 PM, "SonC@aol.com" <SonC@aol.com> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> In a message dated 6/21/2006 12:59:35 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > >> bdcolen@comcast.net writes: > >> > >> But maybe you really, > >> really need IS - in which case it's worth it. ;-) > >> > >> > >> > >> I don't know if I need it or not, but I understand that it can > give you up > >> to three extra stops worth of shutterspeed for hand held stuff. > >>That might be > >> nice. > > > > > > > > I use Canon stuff, and the 3 stops is not really an exaggeration. > Various lenses have different 'generations' of IS mechanisms, and > I've used all. There isn't a huge amount of difference, but by the > same token there is sample variation. I had a 100-400 with IS that > gave me easily a stop extra over the present 100-400 I have. The > first lens got whacked :-(. > > A while ago I posted a picture I took (on film) with the 100-400 and > 1.4 converter of a small bird in a tree, with me standing in the > middle of a field and shooting at a focal length of 640mm and 1/8 > sec. I took 8 frames of which 7 where sharp. Even the 8th (naturally, > the best shot) was useable. This is a shot which I would have real > trouble with at 1/125sec without IS. My 'acceptable' rate would be at > best 2 out of 8. > > I've also taken night shots with the 24-105 lens on the 5D at 1 sec > near the wide end that are perfectly sharp. These were shots of a > resort taken from a floating dock, so options were limited. > > IS has made all kinds of shots possible that were just not there > before. As I often take shots of things that stand still, or stay > still long enough for a shot, I find IS invaluable, and wouldn't get > a lens/camera without it if it were available. I have 5 IS lenses > right now, and if a certain lens or type of lens is available with > IS, I would immediately prefer it over another without. The lens > without IS would have to have at least 2 more stops and no serious > downsides like huge weight or multi-thousand dollar price. In the > case of the Olympus vs. Leica 14-50 or 54 lenses, I would immediately > go for the IS lens, whether it was labelled Leica or Olympus. The IS > _will_ get me more useable pictures, no matter whether it has the > better or worse optical qualities. > > If I were looking at an inexpensive, high performance camera right > now, I would head first to Pentax to look at their K100D (back to > manageable naming). Small, good viewfinder, great lens compatibility, > a decent chip and IS. > > -- > * Henning J. Wulff > /|\ Wulff Photography & Design > /###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com > |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >