Canon Lens Image Stabilization Test Disappoints

[Phil Bates]

I realize that the Canon lens Image Stabilization (IS) technology is designed for stabilizing hand-held type instability, but I was still disappointed these lensed didn't do better in these higher frequency vibration tests , especially since both were tested at the widest end of the zoom.

I ran this "parking lot" test after finding out that my "image stabilized" driving plate footage looked worse than when the lens IS was turned off. Sure enough, when the car is idling, the faint high frequency vibrations seem like they are too much for the IS technology to handle.

Here is the test:

https://vimeo.com/43940787

As you can see, the test shows that the car vibration is minimal when the IS is turned off.

At first I thought the lens was defective, but both lenses?

Any comments that can shed light on this would be helpful.

Thanks,
Phil

 

[Bob Gundu]

Not surprised of the results here. IS and Nikon's VR are designed for certain frequencies and essentially hand tremor. They also don't work very well on tripods and not all the lenses perform equally for stabilization.

From Ken Rockwell (I don't usually go to his site, but he had some good points about Image Stabilization)
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/image-stabilization.htm

Frequency Ranges and Applications
Vibration, in engineering terms, is measured frequency and amplitude. VR and IS systems are able to handle vibrations only in certain ranges. The frequency range of interest is about 0.3 Hz to 30 Hz.
IS and VR systems are designed to ignore very low frequencies of vibration because these systems would mistake panning or reframing for vibration, and would try to work against us as we tried to shoot.
Frequencies higher than about 30 Hz aren't particularly important. Our muscles don't wiggle faster than 30 Hz, and external vibrations at higher frequencies are filtered by the combination of our bodies and the mass of the camera.
Never place your camera directly against something that's vibrating; hold it in your hands to prevent the highest frequencies from being transmitted to your camera.
Above a certain amplitude range (strength of vibration), the mechanics of the system can't move far enough to counter really huge whoop-de-doos, for instance, if you're shooting from a moving platform like the back of a horse.​

Aircraft
VR systems are for eliminating hand tremor, not for shooting from the backs of moving cars or out of helicopters. These much larger vibrations usually require different kinds of external gyro stabilizers.
When shooting from aircraft, never brace a camera against the door or any other part of an aircraft. Instead, hold the camera in your hands and sit straight up with your shoulders away from a seat, so your body can absorb as much of the vibration and buffeting a possible.
As with everything, try your equipment in your situation and see what looks best. When I've shot from open windows of small aircraft, Nikon's VR system couldn't handle it, which makes sense, because it's not designed for that.​

Failures
VR and IS systems can break in weird ways. If they do, turn them off until you get it fixed.
My first Canon 28-135mm IS lens had a subtly defective IS system. It was devilishly defective in such a way that it worked great at slow speeds, but made daylight shots at faster speeds worse!
I sent it to Canon under warranty, and Canon quickly replaced the IS system, and it came back perfect.
This is why I always test my lenses as they arrive. Shoot with and without VR or IS, and learn at what speeds and focal lengths you get perfect results. This way you can shoot accordingly in the field, or catch the rare factory defect.
No VR or IS system even makes things worse, unless it's broken. I've never had a problem even if I've left VR ON on a tripod.
​

 

[paulherrin]

yeah, high frequencies are a no go... they need dampening. i would only use IS for handheld work, including from a vehicle - unless you can dampen high frequencies... any ideas?

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Guys, lets not forget that this you are using are STILL GLASS, lenses, and the two or 3 axis multi stop IS is just for the purpose of that fraction of time in which you take the image, it will never be as goo in VIDEO, especially if you expect the type of stabilization which can only be achieved by a Steady system.

 

[paulherrin]

surprisingly, i've seen it work pretty well for handheld ketch... doesn't replace a steady system, but it's not meant to. just something to use when that's not an option... which is a lot of times.

phil sets a good example by actually testing... rather than just hoping it's going to do what you think and being disappointed.

 

[Phil Bates]

Thanks Paul, Ketch and Bob. I get the picture now, that the high frequency vibrations are not what these lenses were designed to handle.

Last month I tested the Sony FS100. The "steady shot" stabilization in that camera handled the high frequency vibrations fine. Based on those results I assumed (mistakenly) the IS technology was similar.

Thanks again for the input,
Phil

 

[Les Dittert]

Canon now has the new stabilize mode designed for video taking , "Dynamic IS" . Claims to be better even for shots with camera man walking.
It is only enabled during "movie mode" on the DSLR cameras.
In particular the new Canon 18-135 STM lens has this. Unfortunately it also does focus by wire, which I don't think red supports yet?

 

[Sam Gordon]

Helicopter shoot stabilization - which IS lens?

Helicopter shoot stabilization - which IS lens?

Hi there,

I just found this thread, and I'm really interested in this issue. I'm planning a helicopter shoot on Scarlet, using a Tyler minigyro to take out the bulk of the vibration/movement. The IS in the lens is just to get the maximum stability possible (we will also be stabilizing in post, but I'm concerned about rolling shutter/jello). I understand that there are better solutions (eg full Tyler mount), but budget is tight.

I had considered getting the Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM, as it seemed to have the most video-centric IS system of the Canon range, and the right focal length for what we need (wide).

From the thread above, the advanced 'Dynamic Stabilisation' mode for video would not be active when used with the RED, rendering the IS useless. Is this correct? Are there any better options, eg the new-ish 24-70 f.4 L? Or The 24-105 (which I've never found that great in terms of sharpness and IS)

Anyone with experience using IS EF mount glass and/or helicopter shooting your input would be really appreciated.

Thanks