Resolved Initial thoughts about the Canon T3i?

[100Teraflops]

I will handle all of the cameras before I decide! Mostly likely it will come down to which camera feels better in my hand. Thanks again for the help folks! The technical aspect of this thread is interesting.

compuwar: thanks for explaining the purpose of the view finder and the advantages of using it instead of the screen.

The photography community is very professional and it is nice to see people play well with others

 

[habubauza]

Once again, what are you shooting that you won't get motion blur at under 1/60th of a second? What is this "extremely difficult" challenge? I shoot fairly often under 70mm, and I can't for the life of me imagine a subject that would occasionally want to be shot that slowly that wouldn't give motion blur, so I'm curious, please share this challenge with us. More importantly, please share some images of this challenge- I'd like to understand your argument, because unlike you, I believe that many manufacturers add stabilization to shorter focal length lenses simply for marketing purposes, but I haven't shot everything under the roof, so please share some of these wide angle challenges. If it's routine enough to be important to you, then it should be relatively easy to show some examples and enlighten us all.



Actually, the reciprocal of the focal length rule works no matter if the camera is a crop sensor or not. A 200mm lens is a 200mm lens- if it were designed for a crop sensor, it would just have a smaller image circle, not less magnification.

Since my 80-200 doesn't fit into my Wimberly II, I usually shoot with it hand held (it and the slow 300/4 are the two lenses I tend to use hand-held, as everything else will work on the L bracket on the Wimberly other than the 400/2.8 which has a nice foot to balance on the gimball head.) So, no- it doesn't "require" a tripod or a monopod. If being "careful" is too much work for you- and let's face it, it's just acquiring good technique, then probably framing, lighting and all the other "work" involved in getting good shots are "too much work" too- but that doesn't change the fact that you're wrong about Nikon's lenses.

Frankly though, for what I use a 200mm lens for I don't find it all that difficult to shoot at 1/250th of a second zoomed all the way in- which is fast enough to require no support at all with either my full frame or DX crop bodies. At 1/125th, I need good technique or something to brace against- but again, I'd be at 1/60th with an f/4 lens, so I'd be looking at subject motion blur for most moving subjects at that point. For me, that's too slow for say a drummer in motion- where I'd want to be around 1/125th to 1/250th depending. So once again, I ask what are you shooting with a 70-200/4 that makes IS advantageous, because other than tracking moving subjects with some calculated motion blur, I don't see a huge advantage- and I find f/4 enough of a disadvantage that I'd rather have the subject isolation >95% of the time (and I do a fair amount of panning of moving subjects.)

Paul

Hmm. Not quite sure what your issue is, but like I said several posts back, you have your opinions and I have mine. If you are looking for a fight I suggest you utilize your energy and begin a nice debate with the research and development departments at both Canon and Nikon. I am an end user that's all.

 

[compuwar]

Hmm. Not quite sure what your issue is, but like I said several posts back, you have your opinions and I have mine. If you are looking for a fight I suggest you utilize your energy and begin a nice debate with the research and development departments at both Canon and Nikon. I am an end user that's all.

I'm simply asking you to substantiate your opinion with some actual facts- it's you that claims that IS is necessary at 55mm and wider, I'm not fighting, I'm asking you to substantiate "I want to have the choice available to me to shoot at slower shutter speeds that would otherwise be extremely difficult without Image Stabilization." At 55mm (the worst case) you need to be under 1/60th of a second to need IS- that means likely 1/30th or slower unless you're shooting in 1/3 stop increments- so I'm asking what subjects you shoot at 1/30 and below at 55mm and wider that doesn't have unacceptable sharpness due to motion blur? Why do you refuse to substantiate your claims?

Paul

 

[habubauza]

I'm simply asking you to substantiate your opinion with some actual facts- it's you that claims that IS is necessary at 55mm and wider, I'm not fighting, I'm asking you to substantiate "I want to have the choice available to me to shoot at slower shutter speeds that would otherwise be extremely difficult without Image Stabilization." At 55mm (the worst case) you need to be under 1/60th of a second to need IS- that means likely 1/30th or slower unless you're shooting in 1/3 stop increments- so I'm asking what subjects you shoot at 1/30 and below at 55mm and wider that doesn't have unacceptable sharpness due to motion blur? Why do you refuse to substantiate your claims?

Paul

Wow. Really? O.k., It's evening. You are indoors. You want to shoot a scene of 2 lovely people having a candle light dinner with your 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM and you zoom out from your position to 55mm. You decide that you are going to use Aperture priority 5.6 based on the scene you are trying to capture, no flash.

You decide that you don't want to go any higher than ISO 800. Metering is set to evaluative. Single shot. Ok. You still with me? Good. You half press the shutter, the camera meters and says this shot requires a shutter speed of 1/20. Oh no! Conventional wisdom says that you really shouldn't hand hold a shot below 1/60 of a second. Good advise. This means you need a tri-pod. Oh no! You don't have a tripod! Well, luckily you have a lens with Image Stabilization that gives you up to 3 stops of beautiful hand held advantage. So, with Image Stabilization on, you hand hold the camera, bring it up to your eyes, frame your shot, and press the shutter. Voila! You have a hand held shot, in low light with a shutter speed of 1/20th of a second. The shot comes out quite well. Success! All thanks to Image Stabilization.

I have no idea what it is about the above concept you don't seem to understand.

It's like, you would tell someone at the beach on a sunny day "hey why do you need sunscreen? You can just sit in the shade!"

It's called T-E-C-H-N-O-L-O-G-Y, embrace it.

Peace!

 

[luminosity]

Whala

*voila

I've never once wished for VR on any of my lenses, in any situation, and I shoot in low light very often (I regularly hit ISO 8000 and above a week ago).

I use my 180/2.8, which many people seem to recoil from because it doesn't have VR. I pay that no mind and just get good photos with it .

 

[habubauza]

Whala

*voila

I've never once wished for VR on any of my lenses, in any situation, and I shoot in low light very often (I regularly hit ISO 8000 and above a week ago).

I use my 180/2.8, which many people seem to recoil from because it doesn't have VR. I pay that no mind and just get good photos with it .

Thanks for spelling correction. I will correct it in edit.

 

[Ruahrc]

Well I think Compuwar's point is that when you go to look at your 1/20 indoor handheld shot afterwards you realize it is a little blurry not because of camera shake but because your subject moved in the time of the exposure.

VR has it's uses, even at medium/wider focal lengths. But it is far from a magic cure-all.

Ruahrc

 

[compuwar]

Wow. Really? O.k., It's evening. You are indoors. You want to shoot a scene of 2 lovely people having a candle light dinner with your 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM and you zoom out from your position to 55mm. You decide that you are going to use Aperture priority 5.6 based on the scene you are trying to capture, no flash.

You decide that you don't want to go any higher than ISO 800. Metering is set to evaluative. Single shot. Ok. You still with me? Good. You half press the shutter, the camera meters and says this shot requires a shutter speed of 1/20. Oh no! Conventional wisdom says that you really shouldn't hand hold a shot below 1/60 of a second. Good advise. This means you need a tri-pod. Oh no! You don't have a tripod! Well, luckily you have a lens with Image Stabilization that gives you up to 3 stops of beautiful hand held advantage. So, with Image Stabilization on, you hand hold the camera, bring it up to your eyes, frame your shot, and press the shutter. Voila! You have a hand held shot, in low light with a shutter speed of 1/20th of a second. The shot comes out quite well. Success! All thanks to Image Stabilization.

I have no idea what it is about the above concept you don't seem to understand.

It's like, you would tell someone at the beach on a sunny day "hey why do you need sunscreen? You can just sit in the shade!"

It's called T-E-C-H-N-O-L-O-G-Y, embrace it.

Peace!

Two people will likely have unsharpness due to motion blur at 1/20th of a second, as will the candle flames if the air isn't absolutely still. So IS isn't going to help in this situation, you're more than likley to end up with a soft and poorly lit shot- only a faster shutter speed or more light will help. However, your example has a much, much larger problem than that:

A candlelight dinner will have an EV of somewhere around 4 at best (if your'e close up and the candles are bright,) at ISO 800 at f/5.6 at the best case, you'd need 1/4 of a second, and that my friend is going to be a soft shot unless your subjects are mannequins and your candles are LEDs. Therefore, this is not a realistic example at all. Your AOV would be pretty narrow at 55mm on a crop body, so you'd have to be pretty far backto get two people with a table between them into the frame, and we all know that the further back you are from the light, the less of it there's going to be- making it more likely that you'd be in the 2-3 EV range- 1/2-1 second of shutter speed in that case- that's not looking good for our intrepid IS-using wide-angle lens photographer!

Your numbers do not work in the real world as far as I can see- if you can't get it right when you contrive the answer by limiting the focal length to the maximum for the lens, the ISO to an artificial but realistic value and the DoF to an unrealistic value for the subject at the likely distance then I'm not sure how common a situation where a 17-55mm lens is going to need IS in the real world is actually going to be, but I suspect it's a much, much less common occurrence than you think.

It's called R-E-A-L-I-T-Y, embrace it.

Regards,

Paul

 

[compuwar]

Well I think Compuwar's point is that when you go to look at your 1/20 indoor handheld shot afterwards you realize it is a little blurry not because of camera shake but because your subject moved in the time of the exposure.

VR has it's uses, even at medium/wider focal lengths. But it is far from a magic cure-all.

Ruahrc

*Exactly*

As far as I can tell, there is one person on here who routinely shoots subjects where image stabilization with wider angle lenses is a distinct advantage- most others simply haven't thought the problem through or have a higher regard for technology marketing than anything.

FWIW, most people who have practiced good HH technique should be able to get good results at 55mm down to 1/30th of a second. More interestingly, that same practiced photographer is more likely to get better results out of IS than a sloppy photographer will- and they're as likely to get comparable results without IS that the sloppy photographer does with IS.

In other words, even with IS being a skilled photographer is more important than just purchasing the technology.

Paul

 

[habubauza]

Two people will likely have unsharpness due to motion blur at 1/20th of a second, as will the candle flames if the air isn't absolutely still. So IS isn't going to help in this situation, you're more than likley to end up with a soft and poorly lit shot- only a faster shutter speed or more light will help. However, your example has a much, much larger problem than that:

A candlelight dinner will have an EV of somewhere around 4 at best (if your'e close up and the candles are bright,) at ISO 800 at f/5.6 at the best case, you'd need 1/4 of a second, and that my friend is going to be a soft shot unless your subjects are mannequins and your candles are LEDs. Therefore, this is not a realistic example at all. Your AOV would be pretty narrow at 55mm on a crop body, so you'd have to be pretty far backto get two people with a table between them into the frame, and we all know that the further back you are from the light, the less of it there's going to be- making it more likely that you'd be in the 2-3 EV range- 1/2-1 second of shutter speed in that case- that's not looking good for our intrepid IS-using wide-angle lens photographer!

Your numbers do not work in the real world as far as I can see- if you can't get it right when you contrive the answer by limiting the focal length to the maximum for the lens, the ISO to an artificial but realistic value and the DoF to an unrealistic value for the subject at the likely distance then I'm not sure how common a situation where a 17-55mm lens is going to need IS in the real world is actually going to be, but I suspect it's a much, much less common occurrence than you think.

It's called R-E-A-L-I-T-Y, embrace it.

Regards,

Paul

Ok. Since you are an expert where are your workshops? Where is you "fine art photography displayed besides your own website? And I am sure you have already confronted the major lens manufacturers as to their stupidity in embracing optical stabilization. Care to share some of that correspondence? Or do you only get comfort in attacking people who admittedly only shoot for fun?

 

[habubauza]

Deleted.

 

[compuwar]

Ok. Since you are an expert where are your workshops? Where is you "fine art photography displayed besides your own website? And I am sure you have already confronted the major lens manufacturers as to their stupidity in embracing optical stabilization. Care to share some of that correspondence? Or do you only get comfort in attacking people who admittedly only shoot for fun?

If you're really interested in my credentials, send me a PM and I'd be happy to outline them as well as invite you to any gallery openings I have this year.

Lens manufacturers are in business to sell lenses- I could wax on for paragraphs about marketing, especially technology marketing- again PM me for more if you're actually interested.

I'm not attacking you- I started by questioning a position, then when it seemed untenable, I attacked the position. It doesn't matter why you shoot- it matters that you can articulate and hold a position based upon facts rather than belief. However, I attack your position not you- though you seek to attack me. There are lots of people on here who shoot for fun who make wonderful images, and some who make consistently crappy images- that doesn't matter one bit when talking about substantiate-able positions.

Paul