Image Stabilisation Comparison
Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 1:04 pmThe December edition of photography monthly published a comparison of the Nikon, Canon and Sigma image stablisation systems.
I recall other posters have referred to this comparison in previous posts but some may not have seen it.
I found it interesting
Here it is....
Image Stabilization
For many years, image-stabilised lenses were unique to the Canon EF range of lenses, designed for its EOS system of SLRs. Nikon, and more recently Sigma, has also released lenses boasting a similar facility. How does image stabilisation work? In simple terms, a floating element within the lens moves to compensate for small amounts of camera shake. It allows shutter speeds of between two and three stops slower than normal to be used without shake being evident.
PM (Photography Monthly) decided to test three similar lenses - the Canon 100-400mm IS, Nikon 80-400mm VR and Sigma 80-400mm OS - to see how well they handled shake. Our test showed that the stabilisation systems do really work. Of the three systems, the Nikon proved slightly better than the Canon and Sigma, giving sharp results at light levels two and a half stops lower than when the stabilisation system isn't activated. In the case of the Canon and Sigma, the stabilisers were effective for two stops slower. These systems are definitely not gimmicks and could prove the difference between success and failure in low light situations where flash or tripods are not suitable.
CONCLUSION
All the methods in our test are valid ways of reducing or eliminating camera shake. Using a faster ISO rating is the easiest and cheapest method, as specialist equipment isn't required, although there is the downside of increased grain/noise. Fast aperture lenses are specialist optics and so relatively expensive, but they do have the potential to get a usable shot where slower lenses falter. Image-stabilised lenses are also expensive, but as they are often zooms, their versatility cannot be denied. For this reason, they do make more sense than fast lenses.
Ray
I recall other posters have referred to this comparison in previous posts but some may not have seen it.
I found it interesting
Here it is....
Image Stabilization
For many years, image-stabilised lenses were unique to the Canon EF range of lenses, designed for its EOS system of SLRs. Nikon, and more recently Sigma, has also released lenses boasting a similar facility. How does image stabilisation work? In simple terms, a floating element within the lens moves to compensate for small amounts of camera shake. It allows shutter speeds of between two and three stops slower than normal to be used without shake being evident.
PM (Photography Monthly) decided to test three similar lenses - the Canon 100-400mm IS, Nikon 80-400mm VR and Sigma 80-400mm OS - to see how well they handled shake. Our test showed that the stabilisation systems do really work. Of the three systems, the Nikon proved slightly better than the Canon and Sigma, giving sharp results at light levels two and a half stops lower than when the stabilisation system isn't activated. In the case of the Canon and Sigma, the stabilisers were effective for two stops slower. These systems are definitely not gimmicks and could prove the difference between success and failure in low light situations where flash or tripods are not suitable.
CONCLUSION
All the methods in our test are valid ways of reducing or eliminating camera shake. Using a faster ISO rating is the easiest and cheapest method, as specialist equipment isn't required, although there is the downside of increased grain/noise. Fast aperture lenses are specialist optics and so relatively expensive, but they do have the potential to get a usable shot where slower lenses falter. Image-stabilised lenses are also expensive, but as they are often zooms, their versatility cannot be denied. For this reason, they do make more sense than fast lenses.
Ray
