Image stabalization

The value of such advice is subject to context, and subject to change.

The advice is mainly formed around long exposures on a tripod, with OIS designs that tend to drift off in one direction during a long exposure. If one is just using a tripod to take the weight of the lens off of the photographer and just leave it pointed in a direction without having to lift it, and one is using short exposures, and handling the camera and lens, moving them for shots in real time, then stabilization can easily be beneficial. Same with any shorter exposure immediately following a mirror and/or shutter shock; if the tripod setup is not super-rigid, the system may oscillate during exposure, and could use some help from stabilization.

Many newer stabilization systems recognize a steady lens or camera on a solid tripod or table and behave accordingly.

That is almost inevitable, too, hand-held with long lenses when bursting, because any correction for lens sweep will bring the OIS unit or the sensor close to the end of their working range and force them to jump back to "centered", and in fast burst, this can easily happen during an exposure, and can even yield blur hundreds of pixels long during a 1/1000s exposure. A general rule of thumb is that even if a large percentage of shots are improved by stabilization, a certain small percentage may be way blurrier than you ever would have had, without stabilization.

OK. Different definition of gyroscope than the one I know: "a spinning wheel or disc in which the axis of rotation is free to assume any orientation".

Here's something from Analog Devices on accelerometer vs gyroscope sensors.

Thanks.

Informative article

Artie,

I use my Canon RP (no ibis) with the 35mm IS lens and the IS on the lens allows me to take sharp photos all the time of small jewelry at 1/10 of a second all the time. Without the IS I would need to bump the ISO 2 stops higher in order to have sharp photos at 1/30 or so.

For static objects it is must. For moving subjects, no need.

Not entirely true. There's a panning setting on some cameras that tames the vertical movement, yet still allows horizontal movement without turning it into a jiggling staggering mess.

A little off topic, but it might be interesting to sombody. I do a lot of architectural photography in dark old Italian monuments. Tripods are not often welcome, but my self standing monopod with feet, looks sufficiently amateurish to not cause alarm with custodians, and allow me to get those HDR shots with up to 30 seconds of exposure. In practice I have found the IBIS in my Z7 takes care of any little vibrations that might occur during exposure. I wait a few seconds to let the big vibrations die down, before tripping the shutter with a cable release. I have a carbon fibre monopod to save weight and it is much nicer than carting my heavy Manfrotto around, when I am exploring a cities monuments.

I get bitingly sharp results, almost up to tripod level, and I can use base ISO to get less noise, also HDR sets are easy and aligned perfectly. BTW some of the Exif data below is wrong for the HDR sets.

Here is my Z7 with a Three Legged thing monopod + Nikon 24mm PC. The angle bracket is essential to keep the centre of gravity of the camera/lens, within the area traced by the feet ( otherwise the whole lot will fall over!) .

Some results

More cameras should (like the Sigma fp) have tripod sockets in the left and/or right hand ends, as well as in the base. An angle bracket seems to me to be a clumsy expedient.

Don Cox