Buy stabilised lenses if you have money. You will need it all the time. One example is handheld video or low light cityscape or architecture shots. Having IBIS also helps.
Distance shots should really be on a tripod anyway.hand held close up stabilisation is a valuable tool so I would say get a lens with VC you will soon realise the value of having it
You make sense and are correct! We never used to have image stabilization.... Learn the triangle and how a camera works and photos are at your own destiny.
You wrong when you say that the minimum shutter speed is different on a crop sensor or a full frame sensor. It's the same. It only depends on the focal length and the pixel size. To make sense of this, imagine that a crop sensor is just that, a smaller portion of a full size sensor. It's exactly the same as cropping a full-frame photo on your computer to a smaller size. So you can see that the choice of the shutter speed should be the same. The reason most people think otherwise, is that crop sensors have usually smaller pixel size (e.g. R7 vs R6), so the shake blur is more noticeable. But with a high megapixels full frame sensor vs a smaller megapixel crop sensor, with similar pixel size, the calculations are exactly the same. Keep the good work !
That is a very good point, thanks! However, as a practical example, if I want to take a photo of the stars and I want to avoid star trails on a 16mm lens, I can expose for 20-25 seconds on a full frame senzor. But if I use a crop senzor camera, then the maximum I can expose is 6.2 seconds to avoid trails. You are definitely right with your comment, everything comes down to "what is noticeable" in the final image. The star trails are there on both full-frame and 1.6x apsc senzor, but on the full frame, with the same settings, are much less noticeable - "noticeable" being the most important word here I guess :)
So, when one is shooting sports @ 800-1000 shutter speed/ F2.8 with a telephoto lens, should one turn on *Image* *Stabilization* to obtain sharper photos, or no?
@@sonicvboom It is personal preference. You really don't have to because you are shooting fast enough that camera shake is inconsequential. IS was meant for slow shutter speed not fast .
I find IS most beneficial in two situations. Wildlife through a huge zoom unsupported even with plenty of light and low light unsupported. Any other situation If there is plenty of light you're fine.
→ Canon RF 50mm F1.2 Review (Pros and Cons) th-cam.com/video/LjqLBs5boH8/w-d-xo.html
Buy stabilised lenses if you have money. You will need it all the time. One example is handheld video or low light cityscape or architecture shots. Having IBIS also helps.
Distance shots should really be on a tripod anyway.hand held close up stabilisation is a valuable tool so I would say get a lens with VC you will soon realise the value of having it
You make sense and are correct! We never used to have image stabilization.... Learn the triangle and how a camera works and photos are at your own destiny.
You wrong when you say that the minimum shutter speed is different on a crop sensor or a full frame sensor. It's the same. It only depends on the focal length and the pixel size. To make sense of this, imagine that a crop sensor is just that, a smaller portion of a full size sensor. It's exactly the same as cropping a full-frame photo on your computer to a smaller size. So you can see that the choice of the shutter speed should be the same.
The reason most people think otherwise, is that crop sensors have usually smaller pixel size (e.g. R7 vs R6), so the shake blur is more noticeable. But with a high megapixels full frame sensor vs a smaller megapixel crop sensor, with similar pixel size, the calculations are exactly the same.
Keep the good work !
That is a very good point, thanks! However, as a practical example, if I want to take a photo of the stars and I want to avoid star trails on a 16mm lens, I can expose for 20-25 seconds on a full frame senzor. But if I use a crop senzor camera, then the maximum I can expose is 6.2 seconds to avoid trails.
You are definitely right with your comment, everything comes down to "what is noticeable" in the final image. The star trails are there on both full-frame and 1.6x apsc senzor, but on the full frame, with the same settings, are much less noticeable - "noticeable" being the most important word here I guess :)
So, when one is shooting sports @ 800-1000 shutter speed/ F2.8 with a telephoto lens, should one turn on *Image* *Stabilization* to obtain sharper photos, or no?
If you are shooting sports at that shutter speed you are shooting faster than camera shake. so you don't necessarily need IS
@@game2572But my initial question was unanswered though: Should one turn on IS to obtain *sharper* image? (Even when shooting at high shutter speed?)
@@sonicvboom It is personal preference. You really don't have to because you are shooting fast enough that camera shake is inconsequential. IS was meant for slow shutter speed not fast .
@@sonicvboom no at that shutter speed. No need for it. I don’t think it hurts, but it won’t help.
Your shutter speed for the crop sensor is wrong. It should just be calculated as full frame.
this video helped me a lot! thank you.
I find IS most beneficial in two situations. Wildlife through a huge zoom unsupported even with plenty of light and low light unsupported. Any other situation If there is plenty of light you're fine.
Totally agree!
How often do people use huge zoom lenses unsupported? Would you not get tired quickly?
For filming only stabilized
Thx for the lesson
Thank you