View Poll Results: Has Super SteadyShot improved your photography?
- 6. You may not vote on this poll
Yes, I take better images with SSS in the camera
No, SSS has had no effect on my photography worth mentioning
I had a SONY DSLR, but I left it for another manufacturer
I wish I had a SONY DSLR and will consider it as my next camera
Yes, I realize the only SONY has SSS inside a Full Frame DSLR and that’s NEXT
SSS, for the most part, usually comes into play with speeds between 1/15th and 1/125th, which happen usually indoors. Being able to stabilize a telephoto image requires a little more concentration and usually take place outside, unless you are shooting sports.
Once again, with all the participants usually moving in a sports scenario, the shutter speeds are usually in excess of 1/125th. Higher ISO sensitivity would be a better solution, in those cases, but digital noise creeps in with every "higher" click of the ISO selection.
Usable Basketball settings: 1/320 - ISO3200 - f/2.8(f/1.8)? It's the glass that can save these shots.
So, what value is SSS? Arguably, none. The shutter freezes any subtle hand movements.
So your parameters for most likely to notice the lack of SSS would fall into a shutter speed of 1/15 sec thru 1/250 sec ... and a focal length of 50mm -> 400mm. Chances are that anything longer will more than likely be tripod mounted. Anything taken slower will also require a "mounting" of some type.
Last edited by DonSchap; 09-11-2009 at 07:34 PM.
- BFA, Digital Photography
A Photographer Is Forever
Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.
And the number one answer is!!!!!!!!!!!
Drum roll.............................................. ............................................
That's what tripods are for!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1. Does it allow you to take better images? I would say it helps take clearer sharper images in a lot of low-light situations without use of a tripod. I do a significant amount of interior shots of architecture and many places will NOT let you set up a tripod. With my prior non-Sony camera, I was lucky if I got 10% usable shots (reasonably crisp; no blur) in those situations. Now with SSS, I would say I get about 90-95% usable shots without blur.
2. Have you done tests with it "ON" and with it "OFF"? (If not, do this and then answer the question). I did not do an intended test. I did a series of shots on a tripod and turned SSS off for those, but forgot to turn it back on. After about 4-5 shots and wondering why I was getting unwanted blur, I realized the error of my ways.
3. Have you gone back to a "non-stabilized" camera body? And if so, which one? If not ... has in-the-body convinced you of its value? I've not necessarily "gone back" to a non-stabilized body. I still use my Fugi Finepix S5200 on occasion and have been shooting the Yashika-Mat medium format film camera and the C*#%n 35mm range finder film camera. With those non-stabilized bodies, any shutter speed less than about 1/100 sec. hand held and I know I'm risking blur.
Zooms: Tamron SP AF70-200mm f2.8 Di LD Macro; Sigma 28-90mm D macro, Konica-Minolta 18-70 f3.5-5.6
Primes: Minolta 28mm f2.8; Sony 50mm f1.4
Minolta RC-1000 remote commander
Calumet Cambo CC400 4x5 View Camera
YashikaMat 6x6 TLR
Minolta Maxxum 7000
w/ Minolta 35-80mm f/4-5.6 & Minolta 2800 flash
Minolta Maxxum 5000i
& Vivitar 728 AFM flash
I commonly push the limits of twilight w/o a support, and in-body IS was high on my needs list - otherwise I'd be using an Oly e500. I tested many cameras at the local Ritz, and A200 and e500 images won big-time (April '08).. but I could see the blur in the e500 so game over.
2. very rarely is it off, I've screwed up several subsequent images that way
3. no plans to be elsewhere, and no reason to!