Thread: Image Stabilisation and Tripods

Camera Mounted on tripod OS off.
18.jpg

Hand held OS on.
73.jpg

Camera mounted on tripod OS on.
192.jpg

It would be interesting to see other tests on "stabilised lenses".
I only have the one lens with OS. I wish I had have paid more and bought the stabilised version of my Tamron 70-200 .

It just goes to show that there wasn't a struck match between the three.

Well those results are surprising GJ. Just goes to show you cant believe everything they say.

I have 4 VR lenses, I will do some trials when I get a chance and post the results here. I think if any of mine will show different results to yours, it will be the 70-300mm VR. So I will try that and the 18-55mm VR.
Might take me a couple of days before I get a chance though.

OK, I got an opportunity sooner than I expected, so here goes.

I sat this cardboard carton on my very shaded verandah table. All photos taken on a tripod with my Nikon D3100, with 70-300mm VR lens. This lens has two VR settings, normal, and active ( they say active is for shooting from a moving vehicle) so I tested both as well as VR off. The box is about 3.5 meters from the camera.
The camera settings for all of them are, @145mm, f5, ISO 100, 1/6th second. They all are set at +0.7EV (exposure compensation) I forgot to reset it back to zero after taking some photos earlier.

The first pic is #1 full size with VR off. I will only show this one full size as I cant tell any difference between the 3.
14.jpg

#1 cropped. VR off. (Not sure what the blob is beside the box, but its probably Gecko crap going by how many of them seem to be living on my verandah at the moment.)
DSC_0014.jpg

#2 cropped. VR on (normal setting)
DSC_0015.jpg

#3 cropped. VR on (active setting)
DSC_0016.jpg

I must say, I was expecting to see at least some difference, but there you go.

I agree the images shown show BA difference but the posted images are also unlikely to detect any differences.
JPeg artefacts (even at low compression) alone are likely to also smear edges so working with uncompressed images is essential.
The test image should also be of a fine graduated B&W scale that shows a variable range of B&W Lines per mm. The test images need to be taken with these scales located at the centre and edges of the image and then a contrast test applied.

Of course all this suggests that if that is what is required to detect any difference in focus then who cares as it is not showing up in the compressed images being posted on the web.

Originally Posted by BobL

I agree the images shown show BA difference but the posted images are unlikely to detect any differences.
JPeg artefacts (even at low compression) alone are likely to also smear edges so working with RAW images is essential.
The test image should also be of a fine graduated B&W scale that shows a variable range of B&W Lines per mm. The test images need to be taken with these scales located at the centre and edges of the image and then a contrast test applied.

Of course all this suggests that if that is what is required to detect any difference in focus then who cares as it is not showing up in highly compressed images being posted on the web.

Our tests arent as scientific as what you will see in the professional lens reviews etc. But as you say Bob, who cares, if you cant tell the difference in the photos we are using in the real world.

I will still continue to turn my VR off for tripod shots, and for when I have high shutter speeds, as VR drains the battery quicker.

Originally Posted by Ironwood

Our tests arent as scientific as what you will see in the professional lens reviews etc.

Sure, but most of those tests are not what I would call scientific.

But as you say Bob, who cares, if you cant tell the difference in the photos we are using in the real world.

Yep - if it works and doesn't harm anything then I'm not fussed.

I will still continue to turn my VR off for tripod shots, and for when I have high shutter speeds, as VR drains the battery quicker.

I haven't noticed any difference in battery life with my lenses but have not conducted any sort of scientific test to verify this.

To me it makes complete sense that the IS/OS/VR doesn't have any effect when on a tripod. I don't know how they work, but they'd have to be able to cope with varying degrees of movement/vibration (otherwise they'd only work for one amount of movement). Therefore if there's no movement detected there's no compensation required.

I decided to look IS and tripod use up on the web because I had never heard of this problem before.

This is what Canon has done on this problem for Canon IS lenses:

Using IS with a tripod

When using certain early models of IS lenses with a tripod it was necessary to turn off the IS function. This is because of a phenomenon known as ‘Shake Return’. Shake Return occurs when the IS system tries to correct vibrations to which the system itself contributes. When the IS lens sits on a tripod, the IS detection gyros pick up any tiny vibrations or movement; these might be caused by the tripod being knocked, or the photographer adjusting a camera setting.
The IS system then swings into action to correct that movement. The movement of the IS lens group causes its own minute vibration, which is in turn detected by the movement sensor, which triggers another correction. This ‘feedback loop’ can continue endlessly, resulting in the addition of unwanted blur to images that would be sharper if the IS function was switched off.

Canon addressed the ‘feedback loop’ in later model IS lenses by introducing an algorithm to the IS detection system to automatically recognise when the lens is mounted to a tripod. When these lenses are mounted on a tripod and the shutter button is pressed halfway, the IS system kicks in and the image in the viewfinder can be seen to go through a very slow vertical shift for about one second.
If the shutter button remains depressed halfway the IS system detects the lack of motion and automatically switches into a special mode. In this mode IS detects and corrects for mirror slap and shutter movement at slow speeds, but not for ‘normal’ lens shake. There is no advantage to be gained in turning off the IS function or locking the mirror prior to exposure.
The early model lenses which do not have this automatic function and which should have IS turned off (ie lock the IS correction lens group in place) when mounted on a tripod include the following lenses:

• EF28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
• EF75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
• EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
• EF300mm f/4L IS USM

Even with this feature there are some photographers that still claim sharper pictures with the IS off.
I cannot imagine that other lenses manufacturers have not incorporated this feature.

Here is an interesting take on IS and tripods for Canon lenses by Chuck Westfall

[In terms of Canon lenses,] should I use IS Mode 2 all the time? If not, why?The answer to these questions largely depends on whether you're shooting hand-held or from a tripod. For hand-held photography, I recommend Mode 1 for stationary subjects and Mode 2 for panning, with any IS lens that has both modes. When using a tripod, the first thing you need to think about is whether to use IS at all. Unless you are using one of our IS super-telephoto lenses (i.e., 300/2.8L IS, 400/2.8L IS, 400/4 DO IS, 500/4L IS, or 600/4L IS), I recommend shutting off the IS for best results. If you are using one of the aforementioned IS super-telephoto lenses on a tripod, the choice between Mode 1 and Mode 2 is largely a matter of personal taste. If there is any possibility of panning, Mode 2 is best. If not, it doesn't make any difference.
(For the benefit of readers who might be unfamiliar with Canon's nomenclature, Mode 1 on an IS lens attempts to compensate for vertical and horizontal camera movement simultaneously. Mode 2 shuts off IS in the panning direction when panning is detected.)

Simple, isn't it!

Just to add more confusion, some cameras now have the stabilisation built into the camera. Also are you shooting in JPG, or RAW. In JPG mode the camera uses it's own settings to process the jPG file based on what it thinks is best therefore adds sharpening that may actually make the images better or worse but can negate the difference in the stabilisation. You would have to process the RAw images through the camera specific software to do a real comparison, i.e. Lightroom is great but produces sub level out put in comparison to canon genuine software. I still use Lightroom as it has volume processing benefits.

Also to note on long lenses the collar should be used to mount to the tripod not the camera.

A remote shutter release should also be used for long lenses as with macro lenses to remove user induced movement.


An 800mm lens would show significantly more shake therefore more potential difference to your test results than say a 50mm prime.

Hi Ironwood, I just got home from work and checked out your images. I can see slight differences between the photos, however I couldn't say one was any better than another.
As I said, I rarely turn off the OS on my Sigma 17-70 lens and it is by far my most used lens. At least now I know that I can leave OS switched on and I don't have to worry about checking it when I mount the camera on a tripod.

GJ

do you want me to do this test with my canon lenses?
If so, you'll have to send up that bit of fabric!