IS vs. Flash Unit?

Question

OK, here's the deal. I want an external flash unit, only because I want some kind of motion-stopping power without the harsh "direct light" effect. I want to be able to bounce it, diffuse it...(by the way, when they say defuse, do they mean soften it so it's not so harsh?) plus I want more power.
The only problem is that I also want an X to 300mm (the first Focal Length doesn't really matter, only if it's below 100) I figure that I could save money by getting an IS lens to freeze the motion. The only problem is, I have no Idea how much it'll help with low shutter speeds, and yes I know the "focal length>higher than SP>Need IS lens rule, I just want to know how effective they are. I mean, unless I want SUPER freezing motion, do I just need an IS lens for camera shake, even at night? What events do they work well in?
So let's recap. I want to eliminate camera shake, but not with built in flash. Also want xmm-300mm, IS will solve both problems, is it worth it/will it work?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/397663-USA/Canon_0345B002_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_EF_IS.html

Answer 1

You are either confusing two separate issues or you are confusing me with this question and I am not sure which.

Image stabilization is used to allow you to hand hold a long lens at a lower shutter speed than you might be able to do without "IS."

You would select a fast shutter speed to stop motion.

The use of "IS" at a low shutter speed to stop vibration and high shutter speed to stop motion are mutually exclusive actions.

If you are using a 300 mm lens on your Canon, it is effectively a 480 mm lens and you would want to use a shutter speed of 1/500 in the absence of "IS." Using "IS" would gain you 2-to-3 "stops" of shutter speed, but it is very important to realize that this gain is only accomplished through altering the shutter speed and not the aperture. In other words, if the "IS" gains 3 stops for you, it would mean that you could now hand hold the 480 mm lens as slow as 1/60. Of course, if you engaged "IS" to be able to use 1/60, you would not stop any motion.

Most of the time, when we think of stopping motion, we think in terms of 1/250 or faster, so if you want to stop the motion with shutter speed, "IS" will not help at all and you might not need to use a flash if the sole purpose os to stop motion.

If you need flash to illuminate a subject that would otherwise be too dark, then that is the reason to use flash if you are going to be using 1/500 anyway. You are correct in thinking that you can bounce or diffuse the flash so that it is not so harsh an image and, even though you take one of these actions, the ultra short burst of light from the flash willl serve to stop the motion.

If you are in a darker area where you need to use either a slow shutter speed to gather enough light for an adequate exposure or use a flash to provide enough light, you still have the option of using both. In this case, it might be useful to engage "IS."

Suppose you find that a proper exposure for your subject is f/4 at 1/500. You could set any equivalent EV setting, going all the way to f/11 at 1/60. You might then consider using the flash to supplement this exposure by bouncing it, diffusing it, or even reducing its output. You risk having a ghost image if you move the camera. ("IS" is not infallible if you move too much.) You also risk having a ghost image if you get the shutter speed any slower than 1/60 and add flash. You will get a proper exposure from the flash, but you might also pick up some movement of the subject (or camera) at slower shutter speeds. This movement WILL be recorded, as you have set the camera to allow proper exposure with or without the flash.

To recap... And let me repeat that this is my opinion...

Image stabilization will not help you freeze motion without using a flash, since the purpose of image stabilization is to allow you to select slower shutter speeds which would only serve to emphasize motion and not freeze it.

Here is my standard answer on "IS" and you might find it of some value as relates to the other portion of your question:

Image Stabilization - Vibration Reduction

If you want to take pictures that are not so blurry, especially if you are having trouble using a telephoto lens, look for a camera or lens that is designed to help you eliminate this blur caused by slight hand shaking. This technology is known as "image stabilization," "vibration reduction," "shake reduction," "optical stabilization," and "anti-shake" by the various manufacturers. It is "for real" and makes a visible difference most of the time. If you are using an average point and shoot camera without a monstrous zoom lens, you will see the difference in lower light situations where the camera will be using about 1/60th of a second or lower.

If you are using a telephoto lens, the effect will be noticeable at roughly anything slower than the inverse of the focal length, which used to be our standard for deciding when you should use a tripod. If it's a 200 mm lens, you will see the benefit of "IS" or "VR" at speeds of 1/200 or slower. If it's a 500 mm lens, you will see the benefit of "IS" or "VR" at speeds of 1/500 or slower. Actually, you will notice a difference at slower speeds than this, but I'd say that this threshold is where it can be called a distinct advantage. Macro shooting benefits from "IS/VR" also, because any movement will be greatly magnified when you are working at extreme close range with high magnification. Also, I feel that "IS/VR" helps if you are using a point and shoot camera at arm's length as you compose in the LCD monitor. It is much harder to hold the camera still with your arms out in front of you. "VR/IS" would be helpful there, even with the shorter focal lengths.

Please understand that "VR" or "IS" (etc) will NOT stop motion in a moving subject. You need to use a high shutter speed and/or pan along with the subject in order to do that. VR is only to minimize the effects of camera movement to give you a better chance at getting a clear picture. It won't work miracles there, either. You have to at least TRY to hold still. You can't go down a bumpy road in speeding car and expect to get great shots.

This is a composite I made to demonstrate "vibration reduction," which is also called "image stabilization" and "shake reduction" by various camera and lens manufacturers. For the best results, you should click on "All Sizes" and then "Original" before making your comparisons. I tried to remain consistent for all three shots, but I guess as clouds move in and out, things varied by an f-stop or so. I do not think that depth of field is an issue in this test, though. I did not move my feet at all during the test, so the point of view is identical. All three images were made using 1/60th of a second, which I consider to be the low shutter speed for hand-holding a 60 mm lens. I made a reference shot with my 60 mm Nikon macro lens, since I know this to be a fairly sharp lens. I tried to hold as still as I could, but I did not use a tripod, which would negate the need for "VR" anyhow. I then made two more exposures with the Nikon 18-200 VR lens, set at 62 mm. I was trying to match the 60 mm lens, but I did it by just remembering some landmarks and zooming to match. As I used the VR lens, however, I did my best to actually "vibrate" the camera by inducing a tremor in my hands as if I was shivering in the cold. I took one photo with the help of VR and one without. It was extremely odd to look through the lens as I shook my hands.

Since the VR was working, even though I knew I was shaking the camera, the image appeared steady in the viewfinder! Okay, compare the shots for yourself. You won't see too much difference in the top two, but the effect of vibration reduction is very obvious when you see how the picture comes out when "VR" is turned off.

Nikon D200 - ISO 100 - Nikon 60 mm Macro and Nikon 18-200 VR with and without VR

http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/511455669/

I realized that the first VR demo (above) may not be a "real world" demo, as I was TRYING to shake during the exposure. Who does that? I was originally trying to answer a question for someone who had a problem with severe tremors, so I was trying to induce tremors in my own hands. Well, I should ask, "Who does that on purpose?"

So in this pair, I was trying to hold still for both shots. The white balance is different, as I am trying to learn about that, but I realized that the first shot I took had the "VR" turned off. Everything else is the same, because I didn't move and the shots were made less than 30 seconds apart. The exposures were the same for both shots. I did not do ANY post-processing at all, as that would defeat the purpose of the demo.

Nikon D200 - ISO 100 - Nikon 70-300 VR @ 240 mm with and without VR

http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/755244335/

For a detailed, yet easy to understand explanation, see:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/image-stabilization.htm

Popular Photography writer Michael McNamara has a piece about image stabilization on-line. The two schools of thought are to either put the image stabilization technology in the lens (as Nikon, Canon and Sigma do) or in the camera (as Pentax, Olympus, Samsung and Sony do). He says, "So far, lens-based IS has the lead, with one Nikon VR lens logging a 3- to 4-stop improvement (a few big tele zooms barely reached 2 stops). In contrast, the best result from a sensor-shift DSLR is 2 to 3 stops, with the average closer to 2 stops." Read the whole article here: http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4615/image-stabilization-special-stop-the-shake.html There is a chart on page two that is a real eye-opener. Far and away the best at image stabilization is the Nikon 18-200 VR lens, which shows gains of 3-to-4 stops!

Thank you for reading this far. I have the Nikon counterpart to your dream lens and I have a few samples on Flickr. Not that this is all-inclusive, but it just gives you an idea of what you might expect to use the lens for: http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/tags/70300/

Answer 2

You received some real good information from electrosmack1 and Dr. Sam. As Dr. Sam mentioned you are confusing two different questions and one has nothing to do with the other. I will not try to re-explain anything that has been answered. I will add a few things that were not mentioned. If you want to really stop action (SUPER freezing) then you should use a flash. A flash has stopping power of 1/50,000 of a sec or faster. The lower the setting on the flash the faster the duration = faster Stopping Power. The only problem is the flash to subject distance has to be with-in range. Which means you will have only a range of a few feet (2ft maybe 20ft).

Hope that helps,
Kevin

Answer 3

IS usually helps by 1 to 3 stops. It does not stop motion, but simply helps steady your shot. For longer ranges at 300mm, which would be around 450mm on a 1.5 crop factor, the IS would not even be noticeable.

The flash would be your best bet for lighting things up. But, remember, the best way is to have a wide aperture and fast shutter speed. A 300mm lens with a 2.8 aperture and 1/500 shutter speed would work wonders.

Answer 4

The Canon 430EX II may be an excellent addition to your equipment. Its one hundred% properly suited with your digicam's E-TTL II flash metering circuitry which reads the flash immediately off the sensor and as a effect controls flash length for suited exposures. Its tilt/swivel head facilitates you to hire leap flash in the two panorama and portrait orientation. leap flash is extra organic and beautiful. The 430EX II provide you with automobile or handbook administration so your creativity heavily isn't stifled. For the optimal verstility, upload the Canon OC-E3 Off-digicam Shoe twine and the Canon Speedlite Bracket SB-E2. in my view getting the flash off the digicam is a sturdy component.