Image stabilization when on a tripod

[denniswcr]

I remember when ISS first came out there was a lot of talk about it having to be turned off when the camera was on a tripod.  Perhaps that was true in the beginning.  By the time I started buying Nikon "VR" lenses, however, turning ISS off for tripod mounting was being disputed by many photographers, and I found that it did not seem to matter.

 

So when I decided to change from Nikon to Sony, with the debut of the A7Rm3, I noticed that Sony recommends turning ISS off when using a tripod.  Oh my, here we go again.

 

As a result, I decided to photograph the NBS 1952 resolution targets that I had used years ago with film cameras.  This target provides resolution tests down to 80 lines per mm.  I set up enough targets to provide checking the image center, all four corners, and the image edges.  Test were run on the FE 16-35 F:2.8 GM, the FE 24-105 F:4 G OSS, and the FE 100-400 F:4.5-F5.6 GM OSS.  All three lenses were tested at minimum, medium and maximum focal length.  Exposure times were typically 1/10 to 1/5 second.  The F stop was F:8 for the two shorter lenses and F:11 for the 100-400.  The self timer was used on the 100-400 to ensure that there was no shaking when pressing the shutter release.

 

The images were shot in RAW and processed in Photoshop with Camera Raw default sharpening.  I then viewed the targets, side by side, at 200%.  The end result was that I could NOT SEE any difference for ISS ON or ISS OFF when tripod mounted.  Hence, I will not worry about this anymore.

 

As a side note, I was pleased to see that both of the GM lenses were able to produce 80 lines/mm resolution at the center and all corners.  The 24-120 G F:4 was not quite as good on the corners and the left edge was noticeably blurred, which would indicate a defect of some sort.  I will return this lens for a replacement.

 

Dennis Edson

[Philcctx]

I remember when ISS first came out there was a lot of talk about it having to be turned off when the camera was on a tripod. Perhaps that was true in the beginning. By the time I started buying Nikon "VR" lenses, however, turning ISS off for tripod mounting was being disputed by many photographers, and I found that it did not seem to matter.

 

So when I decided to change from Nikon to Sony, with the debut of the A7Rm3, I noticed that Sony recommends turning ISS off when using a tripod. Oh my, here we go again.

 

As a result, I decided to photograph the NBS 1952 resolution targets that I had used years ago with film cameras. This target provides resolution tests down to 80 lines per mm. I set up enough targets to provide checking the image center, all four corners, and the image edges. Test were run on the FE 16-35 F:2.8 GM, the FE 24-105 F:4 G OSS, and the FE 100-400 F:4.5-F5.6 GM OSS. All three lenses were tested at minimum, medium and maximum focal length. Exposure times were typically 1/10 to 1/5 second. The F stop was F:8 for the two shorter lenses and F:11 for the 100-400. The self timer was used on the 100-400 to ensure that there was no shaking when pressing the shutter release.

 

The images were shot in RAW and processed in Photoshop with Camera Raw default sharpening. I then viewed the targets, side by side, at 200%. The end result was that I could NOT SEE any difference for ISS ON or ISS OFF when tripod mounted. Hence, I will not worry about this anymore.

 

As a side note, I was pleased to see that both of the GM lenses were able to produce 80 lines/mm resolution at the center and all corners. The 24-120 G F:4 was not quite as good on the corners and the left edge was noticeably blurred, which would indicate a defect of some sort. I will return this lens for a replacement.

 

Dennis Edson

great work! What are your thoughts about having both IBIS and lens stabilization on at the same time?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[denniswcr]

great work! What are your thoughts about having both IBIS and lens stabilization on at the same time?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Since it is an all or none situation (they are always both on or both off) my tests were run that way since they are not selectable separately.

[Chrissie]

Since it is an all or none situation (they are always both on or both off) my tests were run that way since they are not selectable separately.

 

 

I just verified that on my A9, FE 100-400 GM combo and can confirm the above. Even though I didn't believe it when I first read it.

The "steady shot" menu option in the body gets disabled when you switch the lens's OSS switch to off.

[holmes4]

If the lens has stabilization, IBIS still provides stabilization for whichever axes the lens doesn't do. If the lens has a switch for stabilization, the camera wants you to use that rather than the camera controls.

[denniswcr]

If the lens has stabilization, IBIS still provides stabilization for whichever axes the lens doesn't do. If the lens has a switch for stabilization, the camera wants you to use that rather than the camera controls.

Thanks for that info.  I was wondering how the two systems worked together.

[Username]

...........  I then viewed the targets, side by side, at 200%. 

The end result was that I could NOT SEE any difference

for ISS ON or ISS OFF when tripod mounted.  Hence, I

will not worry about this anymore.

...............

  

Same here. I've never trid it with a flimsy tripod and 

I have a nagging little thought that the vibes from a 

spindly tripod might drive the IS crazy. But having 

spindlies to test, I don't really know.   

 

But with massive tripods I never turn off the IS. With 

truly zero disturbance, the the IS just sits idle waiting 

"too see if it's called to action". And with really solid 

support, that call simply never comes. 

   

Leaving the IS enabled, even on a huge tripod, has 

a purpose. When I rack the focusing rail, that action 

is not so so dead smooth and a dancing image gets 

really impossible to focus well. But the IS smooths 

out the dancing so I can focus accurately. When I'm 

not racking the rail, everything is dead still and the 

IS just goes idle. I don't control it manually. 

[djpalmis]

 

 

The 24-120 G F:4 was not quite as good on the corners and the left edge was noticeably blurred, which would indicate a defect of some sort. I will return this lens for a replacement.

 

Dennis Edson

Thank you for your tests! Great post!

You meant the 24-105, can you tell us if replacement will be ok?

 

Inviato dal mio SM-G935F utilizzando Tapatalk

[denniswcr]

Thank you for your tests! Great post!

You meant the 24-105, can you tell us if replacement will be ok?

 

Inviato dal mio SM-G935F utilizzando Tapatalk

Yes I did mean the 24-105 G OSS.  The vendor has received the returned lens and should ship a replacement when available.  They expect a shipment Jan 1.  I will post the results.

[denniswcr]

I have received and tested the replacement 24-105 F:4 G lens.  Unfortunately the second lens exhibits the same problem.  At 24mm and 105mm the center is crisp and the corners are quite good, all showing 80 lines/mm.  At 60mm, however, the left side is not clear with both vertical and horizontal lines smeared.  The line making the circumference of the circles, inside the corner targets, show a doubling of the line at places where they intersect the radial axis of the image frame.  This test was run at F:8 and manual focus was used with the "highlight" feature turned on.  At this test aperture the lens should show equal results for both side of the frame.

 

Note: I also have the 16-35mm F:2.8 G Master lens and the  the 100-400mm F:4.5 G Master lens.  Both of those lenses were tested with excellent results and both sides of the frame were identical on each lens.

 

Guess I will have to return this lens and exchange it for the 24-70 F:2.8 G Master lens.  It's too bad, as I would really prefer the 24-100mm zoom range.