How important is IS/OSS/VC to you as a videographer?

T

theprestige

Active member
So i've heard a lot about this IS/VC feature that people seem to rave about for video. Apparently this stabilises the lens/camera? That sounds good and all but surely this is only necessary for those who go handheld? Speaking of which, I don't think I have EVER seen any videographer go the handheld route.


99.9% of people who shoot video use some sort of stabilising equipment whether it's a simple tripod or steadicam. So why would anybody want to fork out the extra cash for on camera IS/VC/OSS??? It's an honest question, my friends.
 
IS and VC lenses remove a decent amount of micro-jitters and bumps - sort of like a camcorder does.

Not all lenses do it equally well - that's an important factor.

I completely agree with your assessment of how video cameras should be used, and hand-held is just a damn nightmare.

Shoulder rigs are a common and decent tool, but I still don't like how much shake you can get with them. IS/VC lenses help here too.

There have been a few instances where I got fairly nice steady video from a mini-shoulder mount and a stabilized lens. Riding on an air-boat in the Florida Everglades was one example that turned out FAR better than I expected. The IS was what really made it work.

So, it's a great feature IF the lens implements it well and IF your camera can properly communicate with the IS function.
There are not really all that many that can.
 
i dont know...i have a little gini rig i bought from someone. it is more tiring to put a cam like the ex1 on that than to simply hold the cam. granted my rig isnt balanced with weights or anything, but i am on plenty of small shoots where operators simply go handheld in the most literal definition of the term rather than using a rig. my point is not THAT uncommon to do so.
 
Josh Bass said:
i dont know...i have a little gini rig i bought from someone. it is more tiring to put a cam like the ex1 on that than to simply hold the cam. granted my rig isnt balanced with weights or anything, but i am on plenty of small shoots where operators simply go handheld in the most literal definition of the term rather than using a rig. my point is not THAT uncommon to do so.
Click to expand...

Don't EX1's and the like all have Stabilization built in already?

Large camcorders like that are a different animal - mainly because of their size.

The O.P. was inquiring about it on lenses - which means he's talking DSLR's. And DSLR's are horrible hand-held. Shakey cam nightmare.
 
sorry i misread or misunderstood something to mean that it was uncommon not to use a rig handheld. if you were only referring to dslrs then nevermind.
 
Probably 80% of my work is on a tripod, and I turn off OIS to prevent it doing strange things to the image when I pan or tilt.

But the other 20% of my shooting is handheld, and I pride myself at being pretty good and steady at it. I grew up long before cameras had any sort of image stabilization, and I can live without it if necessary, especially when shooting toward the wide end of the lens range. But it is an undeniable help in getting steadier images, and if it is available, I turn it on whenever I am handholding or using a shoulder rig. Like many camera features, it just makes my results a little bit better, makes it easier to communicate with the camera.

Most of my still photography is action shooting, like sports and airshows. I usually work with long lenses and fairly high shutter speeds (1/500 to 1/2000) where IS won't have much of an impact on the sharpness of the image. But oddly enough, I find it indispensible in these situations, maybe even more than when shooting video, because it helps stabilize the image in the viewfinder prior to taking the shot, and therefore improves my aim and composition.

- Greg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top