Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/04/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In the testing I did with Helen's E3 Oly, the IS improved the image of hand held shots at almost any shutter speed even with wide angle lenes. I was astounded. The only situation the camera performed better without IS was on a tripod, where it seemed to be searching for movement. Olympus agreed. Only turn off IS when shooting from a fixed base such as a tripod. > Doug, > > Have you used the 250 f/4? How does it compare with the 280? > > Jim > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Doug Herr <wildlightphoto at earthlink.net> > wrote: >> Henning Wulff wrote: >> >>>The reason I said the 'boat' example is a valid comparison is that >>>the lenses are of equal speed (and approximate cost) and neither can >>>be used with any other stabilizing system other than the shock >>>absorption of your body. >> >> You can use a shoulder stock. >> >>>The 'land' comparison isn't valid as laid out because you're >>>comparing a $1500 lens against a $3500 or so lens, and when you allow >>>tripod or other serious bracing options IS is taken out of the >>>equation. >> >> I don't follow, Henning. >> >>>In your situation, Doug, where you take the time to properly >>>research, stalk and approach a creature and use the best lens and >>>best support IS becomes irrelevant unless you are forced to suddenly >>>take a shot with your 280/4 plus converter handheld at 1/30 second. >>>Then IS _might_ be useful. >> >> I often get subject motion at 1/250 sec, so a steady camera at 1/30 sec >> is irrelevant. >> >>>I've shot with 400mm+ lenses since the early 60's, and have had 400mm >>>lenses of various qualities. The best lens optically I've had is the >>>first generation of 400/5.6 Nikkor P-C that had exotic glass but had >>>not yet been marketed as 'ED'. >> >> I've also used this lens. ?I'm equally unimpressed with it's handling, >> but after using the 280mm f/4 APO with 1.4x extender, the Nikkor's image >> quality didn't wow me. >> >> >>>IS is not a panacea but in many circumstances can allow you to get an >>>image that you couldn't get otherwise. >> >> I'm not disputing this but... >> >>>Many types of photography depend on getting the shot at all at some >>>level, and the ultimate technical quality doesn't make/break the >>>shot. >> >> Here's where my priorities suggest something other than getting the shot >> at all. >> >>> Here IS can be a huge aid, whether or not image quality is >>> compromised, which I still believe is minimal in an of itself. >> >> Do you have any evidence to substantiate this belief? ?The Canon 300mm >> example suggests otherwise, and that's not even including color quality >> in the discussion. >> >> Doug Herr >> Birdman of Sacramento >> http://www.wildlightphoto.com >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >