Image stabilization shoud be stabilized

Discussion in 'Photography' started by PeterN, Aug 17, 2013.

  1. PeterN

    Guest Guest

    then it's in focus by the time it's stable.
     
    Guest, Aug 19, 2013
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. PeterN

    Martin Brown Guest

    Although even so a tip tilt corrector which is what most image
    stabilisers are in effect should normally result in improved image
    sharpness provided that the actual component being stabilised is
    representative of the image as a whole.

    You can always contrive a few situations where it hinders rather than
    helps but I'd be surprised if you could tell the difference here.

    One which can be a nuisance is thermal gradient refraction ripples in an
    image viewed through a long lens. IS can work against you there. Better
    to freeze the instantaneous distortions of the atmosphere in a shorter
    exposure than have the IS chasing a phantom mirage around.
    I'd expect the autofocus times to be largely independent of the
    stabilisation being on or off unless the camera CPU was underpowered.
    The main objection I have to IS is that with a video camera the
    non-inertial behaviour of watching the scene through the viewfinder
    makes for a tendency towards motion sickness.
    What may be true is that at very fast shutter speeds IS may become
    irrelevant and waste battery power if the camera is already held rigidly
    on a tripod. Most of the time it allows longer exposures without serious
    loss of sharpness from motion trails.

    Autofocus can also sometimes fail when there is not enough light to get
    a sensible image - astrophotography time exposures often require setting
    everything to manual as autofocus will just hunt like crazy.
     
    Martin Brown, Aug 19, 2013
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. PeterN

    Ghost-Rider Guest

    Le 19/08/2013 09:09, Sandman a écrit :
    Very unlikely on fast moving subjects at least.
    A simple solution to get to know it is to actually try and find if the
    results are as expected or not.
    Here is a flying bumblebee which I chased around from flower to flower,
    this wild monster not staying on any flower longer than one second, the
    shutter being half-depressed until I decided to shoot.
    Nikon D7000, continuous autofocus, VR on, manual mode, 1/250, f16,
    built-in flash, 18-300 at 190 mm, Olympus MCON-35 close-up add-on lens,
    full size, accentuated.
    The red square shows were the focus is (that's why it is a screen copy
    of Nikon View).
    http://cjoint.com/13au/CHtrNcH2MRs_bumblebee_19082013_165826.jpg
    This photo shows that in spite of my erratic movements, trying to keep
    that drunk bumblebee in the viewer, the leaves are sharp in focus
    without any movement blur, whereas the flash was unable to freeze its
    movements.
    I conclude that the VR works well even when the camera is shaken around,
    even though the stabilization period on the target is not respected.
    And also that the combined autofocus and VR of the D7000 work well, even
    with big heavy lenses like the 18-300.
     
    Ghost-Rider, Aug 19, 2013
    #43
  4. PeterN

    sid Guest


    I would think that VR had very little to do with that set up, the flash will
    be the thing that freezes the subject. The focus point is forward from your
    red square which is why the plant is in focus and the bee is not in focus.
    There is a small amount of movement in the bee, I'd have to assume that's
    because it was moving faster than your shutter speed allowed for and there
    was enough ambient light to catch it.
    Are you using AF or MF. If you're using AF I suggest checking your focus, if
    you're using MF then I can see that you moved back very slightly as you took
    the picture and the focus moved to the plant.
    The VR will however make the image in the viewfinder steady which is always
    a help.
     
    sid, Aug 19, 2013
    #44
  5. PeterN

    Eric Stevens Guest

    So when is the shutter actually triggered?
     
    Eric Stevens, Aug 19, 2013
    #45
  6. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    I guess that depends on the options you set in the Custom setting menu
    (for Nikon anyway).

    For my D300S (and most Nikon DSLRs)
    AF-C mode, custom menu "a1" you can choose between "Release" where the
    shutter will release even if the camera is not in focus; "Release +
    Focus", where priority is given to shutter release with a greater
    priority given to focus than frame rate when in continuos release mode;
    or "Focus" where the shutter can only be released once the camera is in
    focus.
    In AF-S mode, custom menu selection "a2" your choice is down to
    "Release" or "Focus".

    So if you have set "a1" or "a2" to "Release" the shutter will release
    even if the camera isn't in focus. If you have then set to "Focus" the
    shutter will only release once AF lock is achieved.

    The other AF setting to check is "a4" "Focus Tracking with lock-on".
    This is where you select how long the camera waits before adjusting
    sudden changes in the distance to the subject. Having this setting
    wrong for the situation can cause shutter release issues.
     
    Savageduck, Aug 19, 2013
    #46
  7. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    Need time to recover from heart failure.
    There are a lot who think this. I've met them. That's why I poste the link.
     
    PeterN, Aug 19, 2013
    #47
  8. PeterN

    Ghost-Rider Guest

    Le 19/08/2013 21:49, sid a écrit :
    You're probably right. I use focus priority on shutter which means that
    the D7000 will activate the shutter only when the target is in focus,
    otherwise it will refuse to take the photo but there is a little time
    lag between that activation and the opening of the shutter due to the
    mirror going up and that is sufficient for the target or rather myself
    to have time to move. At such close range, one or 2 millimeters make the
    difference between sharp and out of focus.
    Actually, this is not a good example. I usually stick my camera on a
    monopode with the end stuck to my belt and I get a much better
    steadiness than here when I shot hand-held.
    Yes, the sunlight was bright and 1/250 f16 at 400 iso without flash
    would have given a near well-lit photo. The flash just filled in the
    hairs of the flying monster.
    AF. Continuous.
    Nikon techs adjusted it. It's usually alright 99% of the time.
    I never get anything worth showing in MF. I know this is contrary to
    doxa but I can't help it.
    That is a great help to keep the focus point on the same detail, but
    flying bees are a pain in the *ss to shoot, they never stop moving, the
    rats !
     
    Ghost-Rider, Aug 19, 2013
    #48
  9. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    Never said it wasn't useful. Just that it is not useful all the time.
     
    PeterN, Aug 19, 2013
    #49
  10. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    Nice Capture.

    Several comments:
    Factory settings would cause the AF to stop tracking, what setting(s)
    did you change?

    If you think the 28-300 is a heavy lens, try the 70-200 with a 1.7
    extendr, or the new 80-400. :)
     
    PeterN, Aug 19, 2013
    #50
  11. PeterN

    Eric Stevens Guest

    From my reading re Nikon it looks as though the shutter will not
    release until the stabilisation has locked on. As you have written
    above, it is possible that this may be before the focus has locked on.
    Half-pressing the release button not only triggers the stabilisation
    but also the autofocus and it may be that the reduction in sharpness
    may be due to imperfect focussing as much as to the antics of the
    image stabilisation system.
     
    Eric Stevens, Aug 19, 2013
    #51
  12. PeterN

    Sandman Guest

    There are a lot who think this. I've met them. That's why I poste the link.[/QUOTE]

    I never get to meet the whackos :)

    So these people have compred the result of direct release and waiting
    for IS to stabilize and determined that direct release consistently
    produced the best results?

    I just have a hard time believing that.
     
    Sandman, Aug 20, 2013
    #52
  13. PeterN

    Ghost-Rider Guest

    Le 19/08/2013 23:46, PeterN a écrit :
    Thank you.
    Menu a : Autofocus
    a1 : AF-C priority selection : focus
    a2 : AF-S priority selection : focus (not used here)
    a3 : focus tracking with lock-on : OFF
    Focus settings : one focus point, continuous.
    I usually chase the insects with the shutter half-depressed then when I
    think this is it, I fully depress the shutter and, theoretically, the
    shutter will only take the photo when focus is fully acquired.
    I sometimes fully depress the shutter on a still out-of-focus insect and
    slowly move towards it. The shutter is activated only when the focus is
    OK. That works rather well.
    I have the 18-300 which is heavier still that the 28-300 but weight
    becomes a serious issue. My D7000 + 18-300 + close-up lens + plastic
    diffuser all weigh 2009 gr. That's why I use a monopode when chasing
    insects, otherwise I can't focus properly, I shake too much.
     
    Ghost-Rider, Aug 20, 2013
    #53
  14. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    I never get to meet the whackos :)

    So these people have compred the result of direct release and waiting
    for IS to stabilize and determined that direct release consistently
    produced the best results?

    I just have a hard time believing that.
    [/QUOTE]
    Never said they did comparisons. They just have a belief coupled with a
    lack of understanding.
    Some may even think that gyros are powered by miniature hamsters.
     
    PeterN, Aug 20, 2013
    #54
  15. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    I am happy to see that you don't use all 51 points for that work. For my
    macro work I frequently turn af off, so I have more control There is not
    always an edge at the area that I want to have the sharpest focus.
    That sounds like a good idea. I never thought of
    that.
     
    PeterN, Aug 20, 2013
    #55
  16. PeterN

    Sandman Guest

    Never said they did comparisons. They just have a belief coupled with a
    lack of understanding.[/QUOTE]

    Ah, ok
     
    Sandman, Aug 20, 2013
    #56
  17. PeterN

    Ghost-Rider Guest

    Le 20/08/2013 13:32, PeterN a écrit :
    I have tried many different solutions until I found what worked best
    *most* of the time :
    Manual exposure, 200-400 iso, 1/250, f16 or more depending on the sun,
    flash (built-in or MB400), diffuser, continuous autofocus, one
    focus-point, focus priority on shutter, no shutter lag, monopode in my belt.
    My main aim is to catch the facets of the eyes because it is the seat of
    the soul of our 6-legged little brothers. ;-)
    Therefore, I only use one focus point which I move around if I can to
    try and compose a photo like the ones below.
    I have tried other focus-point combinations, 9, 18, all, 3D, auto etc..
    but without success.
    I have tried AF off but I never got a sharp photo. I unwillingly move
    too much and wind is my enemy.
    What you say about there being no edge is true but I prefer to rely on
    AF than to ruin my photo entirely.
    I never use a tripod because it's too bulky and cumbersome and the
    insects usually don't wait long enough.
    It works well on still insects like dragon-flies which have big eyes
    which the AF point can catch and where it can stay on.
    This afternoon (6 MB), no cropping, no editing at all (they're a bit
    under-exposed) :
    http://cjoint.com/13au/CHusUl3JPft_d7000_07890.jpg
    http://cjoint.com/13au/CHutJicQBXe_d7000_07896.jpg
     
    Ghost-Rider, Aug 20, 2013
    #57
  18. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    Well done. I didn't think the 18-300 was that sharp.
    BTW don't think the images were underexposed. I did not notice any
    blocking in the shadow areas.
     
    PeterN, Aug 20, 2013
    #58
  19. PeterN

    Ghost-Rider Guest

    Le 20/08/2013 21:14, PeterN a écrit :
    It's weird because when I bought the 18-200, the critics were quite
    lukewarm if not very cold.
    The 18-300 was not better treated, even worse, here for instance :
    http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-18-300mm-vr/6
    This author is well known. For him, this zoom is cr*p.
    To make things worse, I used to use the 18-200 and I now use the 18-300
    with an Olympus MCON-35 add-on close-up lens (and sometimes 2 of them
    for ants and other minutes insects), when experts say that results can
    only be bad since you add up the defects of the zoom and of the add-on
    lens especially at maximum range. Nothing can compare with a REAL
    macro-lens !
    But I get the results above. With a little post-treatment, they're quite
    acceptable.
    That's an easy way to save 800 or 900 $.
    And my solution is better than say, the 2.8/105 Micro Nikkor on two points.
    First, I can adjust the frame using the zoom combined with the focus
    ring, when the 105 necessitates to move the lens forward or aft.
    Second, insects are a lot less prone to escape because they are less
    frightened due the shooting distance from the front lens of 35 cm
    against 14 cm with the 105 at maximum magnification.
    There are drawbacks : the small angle of view makes unwilling movements
    more a problem and I cannot focus on the infinite.
    And it's quite heavy too.
     
    Ghost-Rider, Aug 20, 2013
    #59
  20. PeterN

    sid Guest

    Well they look focused well and plenty sharp. Second one is the better one,
    better angle on the dragon fly. A bit of post and they'll come up lovely.
    How big were these dragonflys? What sort of magnification are you getting
    with your setup? just curious :)
     
    sid, Aug 20, 2013
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.