IS off or on?

[ebiggs1]

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.

[Waddizzle]

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

[Waddizzle]

---

@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. 

[Waddizzle]

---

@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.

[ebiggs1]

"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!

[RobertTheFat]

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

[ebiggs1]

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.

[Waddizzle]

---

@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. 

[pitchers]

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.

[ebiggs1]

"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.