Image Stabilisation for PL mount lens

S

SamB2013

New member
Hi all - I have a question about lens production / rigs / handheld camerawork

I own a Canon C300 and shoot documentaries; my work is primarily observational, and as such, involves a lot of handheld filming. My C300 is EF mount and the main lenses I use for all have IS (E.g. Canon 24-105L) as I find that the IS makes a significant difference to achieving smooth results (Philip Bloom and others agree on this). My first question is: are there any PL lenses that have image stabilisation? And if not (I haven't ever heard it mentioned), then why not? They are much more expensive than EF mount lenses and though they have clear benefits in terms of manual focus and aperture rings, it seems odd that they would also lack this key feature.

Secondly, I don't use a rig while filming handheld. I do have one but it's badly made and more trouble than it's worth. Do people reckon that a well set up rig with PL lenses would compensate for the lack of IS? Given that so much in our industry is shot with PL lenses they obviously do work :). But I wonder if the trade up is worth it if you are a one man band carrying a heavy kit bag around all day and filming in difficult environments. Are PL lenses more suited to having a camera unit with grips, focus pullers etc than one man bands?

All advice greatly appreciated!
S
 
Im not aware of any IS PL lenses. Most of those lenses have no or minimal electronics.

Now. Camera shake is a look or a problem as you see it.

Shooting doco often we do shots where ideally we would have used sticks but due to limited time handheld the shot. Here IS helps.

But shooting drama people grip the shot properly (sticks/dolly whatever) or choose handheld because they like the look. Here IS is a hinderance.

Yes a hinderance. Because IS adds slop, messes with your accurate operating. You start a pan or tilt , nothing happens. It adds a softness to the camera move that removes the snap and adds a sea sick calm nausea to the image. (I literally want to puke after looking at a scene with IS 70-200 for a while)

And a big heavy rig and heavy camera certainly help to operate with no IS, and yes the same big rig is not too appropriate for running and gunning all day with no crew..

S
 
Hi Sam - thanks very much for the reply, really helpful. You make some good points about IS. I've got so used to using it as more often than not I find myself trying to minimise the kind of jagged energy handheld can bring. But I think I'll do some tests of with and without IS so I have straight what's effect is.

In the longer term I'll think about investing in some PL glass. The old saying that it's the glass that's the investment not the camera seems more true now than ever (even in the age of modular cameras like Red and Sony's F5/f55). Thanks again for the advice and BTW really nice work on "Stolen".
 
There are two handheld sequences in stolen. Phone man **** 2 and 3 and "getting the package" I guess they were both on my 85/2. Shakey? You decide. But a big rig f3 + batts has a different look to jitter you get with a naked Dslr or phone which virtually require is lenses. Also the speed of cutting hides some movement that may not work for a talking head.

you don't have to invest in anything of course.

personally I use cheap old nikkors
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top