FS7: Image Stabilisation - your thoughts

B

bengiles

Well-known member
I thought I'd start a new thread, as a brief discussion of it in another thread got buried away in all of yesterday's excitement.

Image Stabilisation. Ever since I've been shooting HD on lightweight cameras, I've enjoyed having IS for handheld stuff.

We never really used/needed it back in SD days - except for the occasional play with the fantastically exotic Schwem Gyro Zoom for heli shoots back in the 80s.

I'm interested to hear others' opinions about using IS for handheld work. It's the one factor that seems to be making lens choice a tough one at the mo.

For me, I struggle to get properly smooth handheld work without it. The problem for me is micro vibration - or jitter. But it's also entirely/more than possible that I'm just getting something wrong. I've tried to dampen out as much as I can physically with some extra weight - Chrosziel shoulder mount and V-Lock on the back, but I don't want to make the camera too much heavier. I'm also playing around with getting better fore-aft balance - but it's difficult with these small cameras.

Or is IS just one of those things we need in HD/4K shooting?
 
I don't think there's much discussion here because IS is great. No downsides. It's awesome, a life saver, makes shooting easier, makes productions better. Not much more to say. I wish every lens I had included it...
 
Th FS7 is an unusually stable camera as is. None of my lenses have IS and I've noticed that I get great handheld shots, especially with the wider lenses. They would have to be killer with an IS lens. Then you could add a gimbal....
 
I think that anything that helps you to get your shots effectively is great weather it's stabilisation or AF or what have you. If you are shooting with the fs7 with a non stabilized lens I think it's important to get the balance of the camera right where the balance point is where the camera meets the lens. Your hands shouldn't be holding the camera up that strain turns into mini vibrations.
 
It all depends on what you're shooting. I have found IS to be a life saver when I'm shooting a delicate moment on a monopod or handheld and I need the stability. However, if you're shooting an action scene, you might not need the IS, as the jitteriness might actually add to the shot. You can usually turn off IS on lenses - so I would say that if you can get a lens that has IS and everything else you need, get the onewith IS.
 
I have always been a pretty steady handheld shooter. But big screens (not HD itself, so much) exaggerate the effect of small vibrations and make even my old and well-shot handheld work look worse than it was originally when all our monitors were under 25". I use IS whenever I can and basically don't turn it off unless the camera is on a tripod or stabilizer.

One thing I try to never do is to add any kind of weight to a rig in the hope of improving stability. Even counterbalance weights. You have to double the weight of the whole system to halve the natural frequency of vibration, and even that is no comparison to IS that can produce a 4X - 8X level of improvement. I achieve my best physical steadiness when holding the lightest possible camera, especially after a few hours in the field. Unfortunately, no one makes a long and skinny 5-pound camera that honestly balances over the shoulder -- that would be the holy grail for me. It's either light cameras that I have to hold out in front of me, or heavy ones with a shoulder pad. Neither is the best approach.

- Greg
 
Greg Smith said:
You have to double the weight of the whole system to halve the natural frequency of vibration, and even that is no comparison to IS that can produce a 4X - 8X level of improvement.
Click to expand...

Thanks Greg - just out of interest, where did you get those figures from?

Cheers,

Ben.
 
Interesting - 206 views, but only 6 replies, all of them positive about IS, although I regularly read posts from people who swear by mechanical-only lenses.

IS/VR only really exists on DSLR lenses, doesn't it, so what are F5/55, RED and Alexa ops using for handheld work?

Also, prior to the DSLR thing, HDCam SR was around for several years, and there was no IS on those 2/3" lenses.

Anyone from pre-DSLR times got a view?
 
i love IS and it has definitely become a major reason to buy or not buy lenses or choose one over another....but things are getting interesting with in body IS as in the sony A7II, we will see how long it will take to show up in motion cameras....
 
I don't use IS and it can play merry havoc with slomo. The more mechanical and less electronic things on a camera the better as far as I'm concerned :)
 
To me IS is a giveaway to the amateur look, unprofessional. I much prefer balanced on my shoulder, 2/3 eng cam or the F55.

Edit: Steadicam = yes; IS = no
 
I have been shooting since the 70's.

And I think IS is great. I use both lenses with and w/o IS.

On older cams (BetaSP and earlier era) the cameras were so heavy that they were pretty stable both cradling and on the shoulder. I also used them a lot with Stedicam.

New cams like the 7 are so light that IS really helps IMHO, both cradling and on the shoulder. It almost makes up for the loss of weight. So I think that is a big plus. BTW IS has existed in very expensive Broadcast ⅔" lenses for a long time. When I shoot with the FS7 on a Stedicam I add extra weight and it works well, I even sometimes use an IS lens with IS on with my SK Stedicam, it works great.

Just my nickel.
 
The IS on the Sony 18-252 is excellent. Subtle but effective. You need the F55's global shutter to avoid artifacts. I hope it's not "unprofessional" because then I'd have to return all the money I've made from satisfied clients. Good luck putting a Steadicam on your shoulder, it's kind of bulky.
 
I don't have a problem with IS, especially when used correctly.

What gets me is when I see people use it on tripod mounted shots...
 
bengiles said:
For me, I struggle to get properly smooth handheld work without it. The problem for me is micro vibration - or jitter. But it's also entirely/more than possible that I'm just getting something wrong.
Click to expand...

It's not that you're getting something wrong, not really. The problem, if it is a problem, is that the better the image quality the more it shows your technique. Said another way, if you don't want to see your technique in your images, you have to use sufficiently good technique. This is a lesson I learned in moving from 35mm still cameras to large format 5x4 film. If you want a good image, you have to use good technique. All there is to it.

My prediction is that the rise of 4k video capture is going to end up causing a return to sticks. Because humans are lousy tripods. As anyone who has struggled with hand holding eventually finds out.
 
Some IS lenses work better than others.

I use it with caution. It can be useful at times, but it does soften the image, causes lags that can ruin your framing and can get so confused it starts jumping around screwing the shot completely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top