Image Stabilization - do you use it?

[mGEEx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just out of curiosity..

 

How many of you out there actually utilize the IS on the x1? How useful has it been for you? Or perhaps it doesn't make much of a difference?

 

Any input would be much appreciated.

[Guest badbob]

Just out of curiosity..

How many of you out there actually utilize the IS on the x1? How useful has it been for you? Or perhaps it doesn't make much of a difference?

Any input would be much appreciated.

 

This link gives the definitive description of the X1's IS:

 

Leica X1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[wda]

I have Image Stabilisation set in the menu and believe it helps on those rare occasions where exposure exceeds the criteria for invoking stabilisation. In the early days I did a quick test and convinced myself that the feature was worthwhile, provided there were no moving elements in view. It does no harm to leave it 'set'.

[h00ligan]

I never had occasion to trigger it, but I'm not in the habit of taking night time landscapes which seems is the intended purpose. It won't help with live subjects... or raw. Maybe another time there will be a use but as it exists I find it useless.

[grober]

I don't use it.

 

In fact, the X1 is so very slow to do anything, a growing percentage of my photos are taken from a fixed surface usually with self-timer.

 

"Full motion photography" ala every M-camera I've ever owned this ain't.

 

-g

[CruelTeacher]

Just out of curiosity..

 

How many of you out there actually utilize the IS on the x1? How useful has it been for you? Or perhaps it doesn't make much of a difference?

 

Any input would be much appreciated.

 

 

Actually this so called "IS" ist just marketing blabla...neither is there a shifting of the CCD nor a moving element in the lens - so just forget it and turn it off.

[Guest badbob]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It makes two images and combines them, so even though it may improve the "apparent" sharpness of the *average* image you shoot, in reality each and every image you shoot with IS set ON will be slightly blurred compared to having it Off.

 

The link above has more detail.

[JanCderidder]

Image Stabilisation ... theres nothing better than a small lightweight tripod, I actually have bought 2 since the purchase of my X1, the little Novoflex does wonders and beats any kind of internal IS.

 

My wife shoots the kids with the D300, I hate sports, I dislike wildlife, insects and flowers and such, I do architecture and "crowd" photography and with the magnificent X1 lens I want to get things blurred, but even use the tripod for these blurred/ghosted shots. IS therefor is totally irrelevant to me ...

[wda]

....... in reality each and every image you shoot with IS set ON will be slightly blurred compared to having it Off.

 

The link above has more detail.

Not quite true; IS will only work if your working exposure is longer than or equal to 1/30 second @ f/2.8

[JanCderidder]

Who needs IS with a 35mm lens anyway?

[eelekim]

Right. I have tried to shoot at 1/8 handheld. The picture is reasonably sharp. The anti-shake function is no use to me.

[RichardM8]

The IS implementation on the X1 is a joke imo.

 

But if I have to name one thing I miss from my Canon SLR (now gone) it has to be the excellent IS that the EP-S 17-55 f/2.8 zoom had that I used most. It worked really, really well.

[h00ligan]

My version of IS in a pinch is to set the aperture I want, and underexpose 1/3 -2/3 - having the minimum ss set to 1/30 That's only necessary when I am bouncing around. It's another reason I thought of attaching the neckstrap, for a bit more stability.

[damnsharp]

I never used IS. Maybe one day I will try but indeed, I bought a Sony tripod (Sony VCT-R100) and it is the best tripod I had in years for only $ 41. It's compact, light (660 grams) but you have to bend you knees when you want to look into the camera because the total height is to high enough.

 

@h00ligan, thanks for the tip I will try this.

[AlanJW]

Never use it. It is pseudo- stabilization, and the camera is slow enough not to burden it with two exposures. IMHO, the camera is very easily handheld. I have gotten very good results down to 1/20.

[sungnee]

Yes, I do use it, because I've got very shaky hands, and I've been further spoilt by all the stabilised cameras that I've bought over the years.

 

It indeed is slightly blurred. I compensated by setting sharpening to Medium High. Good enough for my purposes.

[jankap]

Why don't you trust the Leica development people? I would give the function a try with some test exposures (1/10 sec. or longer).

You could use a monopod alternatively. There are photographers, who use a monopod permanently. You could start with nordic walking, perhaps there are versions with a ballhead provision.

Jan

[ChiILX1]

Read your manual- the IS is just for JPEGs and doesn't even work on RAW files. Case closed. Why have it on? It could only slow continuous shots (if It's even on for that either)

[Stevez4]

X1 image stabilization slows down the camera. I have several shots of floors instead of the images photographed. So I don't use stabilization. X1 images are superb,but the camera is incredibly slow. The little V20 is faster. I wonder if a software update can alleviate the problem.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[wlaidlaw]

If you look at some of DP Review's group tests, they do a stochiometric comparison of the various IS systems. There is a quite marked difference between the efficacy of the various implementations, i.e. body versus lens versus digital. My little Canon Ixus 850IS, long appropriated by a family member, seemed to have pretty effective IS. My current back up small camera, a Ricoh GX200, which otherwise is a really nice little camera, with particularly good ergonomics, controls and a very useful EVF for use in sunlight, has an almost useless IS. I have tried back to back tests at hand held 1/20 second and can see precious little difference with IS on or off.

 

I have found that my M8 and 9, maybe due to the high density (quite a lot of weight in a small package) and lack of mirror slap, are as effective as using IS, when I borrow one of the family's various DSLR's with with body or lens IS (son's with body IS in Sony Alpha 350, daughter's with lens IS in Nikon D90). I might think differently if I used long telephotos a lot but where I tend to want to need IS is in darkish buildings with W/A lenses. From my experience, the Nikon lens IS is better than the Sony body IS. Attached is crop from image with M8 and 35 ASPH Summilux at 1/20 sec.

 

Wilson

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!