Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] The reason why we have image stabilization

Subject: Re: [OM] The reason why we have image stabilization
From: Martin Walters <mwalters@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 18:33:06 -0500
I took a number of night shots at Winterlude on tripod with IS on. Why? 
I was too concerned with focus (Pen 70/2) etc, that I forgot that the IS 
was on (but set to the correct FL). No problem with sharpness, that I 
could see. Then I think I switched the IS off, when I went back to the 
45/1.8 and AF. They seem sharp as well.

I have a reasonably solid tripod (Manfroto 055) and ballhead (Acratech). 
Nevertheless, with the big Tammy 80-200 + OM-D, I was surprised how much 
movement could take place. I was inside, on wood flooring, so had the 
luxury of taking my time. Anyway, I took several shots with the 100/2, 
the 180/2.5 and the zoom at 80 and 200mm, most with IS on, but a couple 
with IS off. If anything, better results with IS on.

I've a bit of difficulty understanding the IS off/tripod combination. I 
would think that if the camera is not moving (e.g., on tripod) then the 
IS would not be kicking in either; the IS is presumably reactive.

Martin

On 17/02/2013 6:13 PM, Moose wrote:
> Live a little on the wild side - try tripod with IS on. Many people have 
> found this to work well, especially with less
> than completely solid tripods. Oly has the same advice for the E-M5. My 
> casual tests say it makes little or no
> difference. Where I thought I could see some difference, it was in favor of 
> keeping IS on.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz