topic Re: IS off or on? in EF & RF Lenses

IS off or on?

ebiggs1 — Wed, 07 Mar 2018 22:20:25 GMT

Another which is better. Look at these.

Now a 200% crop of each.

Both shots are made with the Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM Lens. One shot has the IS on and a UV filter. The other has no filter and IS turned off. Worse case to best case? No right or wrong just a curious example.

Re: IS off or on?

Waddizzle — Thu, 08 Mar 2018 02:05:20 GMT

Without knowing the exposure settings, this is an exercise in futility.

Re: IS off or on?

Waddizzle — Thu, 08 Mar 2018 21:04:38 GMT

@ebiggs1wrote:
You know the "ignore" feature is a often missed and little used feature of this board. Why don't you try it?

Actually, we learned our lesson from your previous demonstration. I just wanted to point that out to you.

It has also been pointed out to you several times that some combinations of camera and lens have the smarts to automatically disable IS when the combo senses that it is mounted on a tripod. Despite posting a link to the Canon article, you still refuse to accept that behavior as fact.

On that note, I wish to offer my congratulations. You have demonstrated that there is no difference, probably because the gear you used has the smarts to automatically disable IS.

Re: IS off or on?

Waddizzle — Thu, 08 Mar 2018 23:36:03 GMT

@ebiggs1wrote:
Well wrong again as usual my friend. The IS was working just fine. Admit the fact you can not tell the difference as is most always the result when believing in all you read instead of actual hands on testing. Some do, some watch!

Again let me ask humbly, "You know the "ignore" feature is a often missed and little used feature of this board. Why don't you try it?"

I suggest that you practice what you preach.

[EDIT] BTW, you proved my point. You think the IS is active, when it is not.

Re: IS off or on?

ebiggs1 — Fri, 09 Mar 2018 07:25:16 GMT

"I suggest that you practice what you preach."

You are right, my friend. When I don't respond to your, let's say, less than accurate replies it is because I didn't see them. Ignoring you by me accomplished the same end.

Bye!

Re: IS off or on?

RobertTheFat — Sat, 10 Mar 2018 23:17:01 GMT

@Waddizzlewrote:
@ebiggs1wrote:
You know the "ignore" feature is a often missed and little used feature of this board. Why don't you try it?
Actually, we learned our lesson from your previous demonstration. I just wanted to point that out to you.

It has also been pointed out to you several times that some combinations of camera and lens have the smarts to automatically disable IS when the combo senses that it is mounted on a tripod. Despite posting a link to the Canon article, you still refuse to accept that behavior as fact.

On that note, I wish to offer my congratulations. You have demonstrated that there is no difference, probably because the gear you used has the smarts to automatically disable IS.

I thought the second picture was a little sharper. Am I the only one who sees a difference?

Re: IS off or on?

RobertTheFat — Sat, 10 Mar 2018 23:33:58 GMT

I don't see the originals of two of Ernie's posts that Waddizzle quoted. Did the moderator give them the hook or something?

Re: IS off or on?

Waddizzle — Sun, 11 Mar 2018 07:34:12 GMT

I thought the second picture was a little sharper. Am I the only one who sees a difference?

I did not see a difference, nor did i look for one. The 5 MB file size limit degrades the images to the point of “why bother.” Besides, one shot used IS and a UV filter, and one shot used neither IS nor UV filter.

So, if you perceive a difference in the images, then what would you say caused the differences? IS or UV? Not enough info, IMHO. Never mind the fact that the file size limit degrades the images to the point that any critical comparison becomes moot.

Re: IS off or on?

ebiggs1 — Sun, 11 Mar 2018 15:42:29 GMT

Robert,

"I don't see the originals of two of Ernie's posts that Waddizzle quoted"

I put the him in the 'ignore catagory' so perhaps that is why they don't show up. If he ever offered anything constructive I would like to converse with him. But he doesn't. One of us has to tke the high road.

Re: IS off or on?

ebiggs1 — Sun, 11 Mar 2018 15:49:55 GMT

Robert,

"Am I the only one who sees a difference?"

I did not intend for this to be the defacto practice. It is merely to show that the IS on or off, the filter or no, is not a game changer like some want you to believe.

Is there any difference, of course there is, but how much is the question.

I have taken literally thousands of pictures since I retired and have come to some interesting conclusions. One thing I have found for certain is , you probably don't know all you think you do. And, if all you do is sit behind the keyboard you never will learn.

Re: IS off or on?

Waddizzle — Sun, 11 Mar 2018 16:06:21 GMT

@ebiggs1wrote:
Robert,
"I don't see the originals of two of Ernie's posts that Waddizzle quoted"

I put the him in the 'ignore catagory' so perhaps that is why they don't show up. If he ever offered anything constructive I would like to converse with him. But he doesn't. One of us has to tke the high road.

I am going to hold you to that. Most of your remarks made in my direction have usually been highly offensive.

Re: IS off or on?

pitchers — Thu, 29 Mar 2018 03:31:18 GMT

Much easier to read the text in the second example, I agree.

However, the whole set-up looks pretty precarious such that a passing truck or gentle breeze could change things dramatically.

Re: IS off or on?

ebiggs1 — Thu, 29 Mar 2018 14:23:10 GMT

"However, the whole set-up looks pretty precarious ..."

Exactly, this is how you would use it. Not the way a lab tests it. Big difference.

Re: IS off or on?

pitchers — Wed, 04 Apr 2018 05:57:15 GMT

@ebiggs1wrote:
"However, the whole set-up looks pretty precarious ..."

Exactly, this is how you would use it. Not the way a lab tests it. Big difference.

Except you're not controlling for that -- the two photos are not taken simultaneously. So nothing can be concluded. That was my point.