DSLRUsers.com

I was just reading a review in a magazine of the Canon EF-S 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM lens and this paragraph stood out to me.

There is no advantage to be gained with the use of image stabiliser when the camera is mounted on a tripod. In fact, Canon recommends it be turned off in such situations because images can actually be slightly blurred.

My question is why?
And could this be the reason why some people complain about blurry photos with the 24-120 VR?

I was under the impression that you could leave IS on with tripod mounting with the canon system but not nikon.

never having tried a canon though.

Tests with the nikon stuff shows me that with a good tripod, my images are sharper with vr off.

not sure why though, just something I noted.

steve

phillipb wrote:I was just reading a review in a magazine of the Canon EF-S 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM lens and this paragraph stood out to me.

There is no advantage to be gained with the use of image stabiliser when the camera is mounted on a tripod. In fact, Canon recommends it be turned off in such situations because images can actually be slightly blurred.

My question is why?
And could this be the reason why some people complain about blurry photos with the 24-120 VR?

LOZ wrote:

phillipb wrote:I was just reading a review in a magazine of the Canon EF-S 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM lens and this paragraph stood out to me.

There is no advantage to be gained with the use of image stabiliser when the camera is mounted on a tripod. In fact, Canon recommends it be turned off in such situations because images can actually be slightly blurred.

My question is why?
And could this be the reason why some people complain about blurry photos with the 24-120 VR?

I thought after the shooting test with that lens this morning and it was turned out quite nicely as a pro gears.

Sorry LOZ, may have to check your hand again

Here is a theory-

When you are shooting handheld, the camera has relatively coarse movement and therefore the movement of the inner VR mechanism reduces overall movement.

However when on a tripod, the camera has only very fine movement, and therefore any movement of the VR inner mechanism is relatively greater, and therefore appears as shake.

Haven't completely thought through the physics of this.

Why do we need VR or IS? if I cannot hold the camera still there is something wrong with me.

If I need VR I have a monopod and tripod.

VR will take some shake out of my hand but not out of a moving subject.
VR is not a substitute for fast lenses.


Sorry but I just don't see what all the VR/IS fuss is about.

Dug wrote:Why do we need VR or IS? if I cannot hold the camera still there is something wrong with me.

If I need VR I have a monopod and tripod.

VR will take some shake out of my hand but not out of a moving subject.
VR is not a substitute for fast lenses.


Sorry but I just don't see what all the VR/IS fuss is about.

Sorry Dug, but this is not really a debate of wether VR is worth having or not. Just a bit of technical talk about the tripod issue.
Mitchell's theory sounds plausible though.

I know I just wonder, Why VR?

should I start a new thread?

phillipb wrote: Just a bit of technical talk about the tripod issue.

Im not familiar with IS systems, but first VRs on Nikkors have an AI programmed to 'predict' movement of the lens when hold on a human's arm.

Therefore, I am guessing that the system has a prediction algorithm that simulates the pulse shake of an arm holding the lens. Most of out handshake when holding a lens straight up, have a pattern in the shake. The VR chip in the lens will try to detect and predict the next movement of your hand's movement with the movement and balance sensors inside and actuate on the follow pre-programmed path which match the best for it.

When the lens is mounted on tripod, then the vibration is very minimal (if there is any). The sensors will try to 'think' that you are holding the lens correctly in very stable way, but will soon enough make another movement in a way, so it will compensate for that.

Newer VR systems have some better prediction programs so it is able to stop down 4-stops and 'usable' on tripods...

No need Dug, just go to the thread that Justin has just posted about the 18-200VR

dug: not wanting to hijaack the thread into a why vr one but VR has let me get shots like 1/60s @ 400mm hand held and be tack sharp.
good technique or not, I doubt that I could have achieved that handheld without vr. Good technique and VR equals more keepers in low light. My 2c worth.

sTeve

Maybe I just hate new technology.

I was the same when they started putting lightmeters into cameras.

phillipb wrote:I was just reading a review in a magazine of the Canon EF-S 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM lens and this paragraph stood out to me.

There is no advantage to be gained with the use of image stabiliser when the camera is mounted on a tripod. In fact, Canon recommends it be turned off in such situations because images can actually be slightly blurred.

My question is why?
And could this be the reason why some people complain about blurry photos with the 24-120 VR?

Mmmmm, Canon must be a different system to Nikon as on page 18 of the 70-200 VR instruction manual says;

"When the lens(e) is mounted on a tripod, set the VR to OFF. However set the VR switch to ON when using a tripod without securing the head, or when usinga monopod"

It also says the VR is driven by 'Voice Coil Motors" Which says a lot (not)

Philip, hope your theory on the 24-120 VR may be right, as I am put off by the negative feed back here and elsewhere, been eyeing off the new Sigma HSM in this range........

For those of you who wish to know how VR works try this:

http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/about/technology/nikon_technology/vr_e/index.htm

Thanks Chris,
According to that article,

A tripod is generally believed to prevent image blur, but camera shake can occur due to the movements of the quick-return mirror or shutter curtain, or winds. This camera shake movement has different characteristics compared to normal camera shake caused by handheld shooting. Nikon's VR technology makes it possible to detect and compensate this type of camera shake, as well. (Note: Some VR lenses do not have this function.)

That could explain why some lenses can't handle the tripod. Maybe Canon's lenses fall in that category.

I know for a fact my 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS craps itself when IS is on an she's on a tripod. Simply get blurred photos each and every time, early gen Canon IS mechanisms don't support tripod mounted. Some later lenses are tripod friendly though and IS is beneficial when tripod mounted.

OK - Ironically, I was reading through the EF Lens book today, and stumbled upon a chapter discussing IS on the Canon Lenses.

It's wording was that the originally IS technology used in lenses should be turned off for tripod work, however, the IS technology used in the new versions of the long primes (300,400,500,600) is implementing technology that means it can be left on.

I am not lucky enough to own any IS lenses though, let alone a 300/2.8 or 300/4 to argue the case.

If anyone wants to purchase me one, i will certainly do the tests, to see if this is the case.

Tristan

Okay - I just hauled out the book:

EF Lens Work III, Page 197 wrote:When the first IS lense were used with a tripod, the image stabilzer malfunctioned, requiring the photographer to turn off the image stablilizer function. However, the EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM and other new models in the super telephoto L type IS series are equipped with an image stabilizer that can be used with a tripod, which prevents malfunctioning. Since the system uses a vibration gyro to automatically detect when the camera is mounted on a tripod, the photographer can focus on the photograph without having to thing about turning the stabilizer on and off. And when a monopod is used with any lens in the IS series, image stabilization is identical to that acheived during hand-held photography.

E&OE

Yes I did just type that out from the book. Yes, I know that I should find better things to amuse myself with. Yes, it is late.

Hope this helps, at least the Canon users.
Tristan

Edit: Mods, if you want this removed for copyright reasons, then just obliterate it. I thought that by referencing it though, it should be ok.

I think it depends how you're shooting on the tripod. Johnno found that his 24-105IS (latest generation IS) was blurring images slightly on long exposures (10 second +). Turning it off made things sharper, I assume because the IS drifts a little over time. But for short exposures on a tripod, especially at longer focal lengths, I use IS all the time to good effect. So somewhere between say 0.1s and 10s there's a crossover point where IS stops helping and starts hurting.

This is why I was questioning the value of the 17-55 having IS - by the time you get to 1/17th second you're not usually going to benefit much from being able to drop to 1/2 second with IS, and whether IS adds or removes blur at that time length is a good question. One Canon salescretin at PIW simply told me that it's impossible to shoot handheld at 1/2s when I asked, so possibly the word from Canon is that IS on the 17-55 is only useful at the longer end of the lens.

Dug wrote:I know I just wonder, Why VR?

I don't always have a tripod at hand, but using VR, I've been able to grab acceptable sharp shots, handheld, at remarkably long exposure times. a half second and longer, even.

And of course, this is especially the case where a longer lens is in use shooting a relatively static subject.

Try a building, 400mm, 1/125, handheld, for instance.

And sometimes the subject movement is exactly what is needed.

Andyt wrote:Philip, hope your theory on the 24-120 VR may be right, as I am put off by the negative feed back here and elsewhere, been eyeing off the new Sigma HSM in this range........

Andy,

Don't be.

The 24-120 is exceptional value for money, and is a very nice lens. Not pro quality, granted, but for the price ....

gstark wrote:

Andyt wrote:Philip, hope your theory on the 24-120 VR may be right, as I am put off by the negative feed back here and elsewhere, been eyeing off the new Sigma HSM in this range........

Andy,

Don't be.

The 24-120 is exceptional value for money, and is a very nice lens. Not pro quality, granted, but for the price ....

The 24-120VR isn't a pro glass but it produced pro-graded photos as we tested LOZ's 24-120VR yesterday at the mini meet.