Stabilisation?

[crowecg]

I saw a click-bait headline the other day "Image stabilisation is a useless feature - I've been a pro sports photographer for 20 years and never used it".  I suppose you could argue about sports already needing a high shutter speed, so you don't see so much benefit from stabilisation.  But perhaps a better answer to the point of stabilisation is this....

 

night321   135mm handheld at 1/30 sec.

 

and this.....

 

night324 165mm handheld at 1/60 sec.

 

All shots Fuji X-E3 with 70-300 zoom (and of course image stabilisation 'on'

[crowecg]

this one I racked all the way out to 300mm, still at 1/60 sec

night326 

And whilst the focus was mostly pretty good that night, I did get it hunting at one point - it looked like this and I liked the idea, so delibertatly moved way out of focus...

night325 
 

Edited 6 August by crowecg

[Dallas]

Excellent shots, Chris. 

 

These Youtubers and other "influencers" will say anything to get people to click on their links and interact with their garbage. One of the worst is that Tony Northrup fool. As we like to say here, "What a chop." 🙂 

 

Any working professional photographer doesn't really have the time to produce online content. I have been stuck on producing my course material for my property photography section here on FZ. I have done the introduction (needs a re-write though) and am hoping to get the first chapters done soon. But paying work is a priority and then when it suddenly stops coming in all my attention shifts to marketing. It's a never ending cycle. 

[Pizzafoundry]

Beautiful shots.  Yes, any nitwit that tells you stabilization is useless is actually useless himself.  Anyone who has ever used it will tell you it is fantastic.  I have hundreds of shots taken essentially at night at 1/30 and 1/60 that are just gorgeous.  I'm really old school and shoot a D300 with the 18-200 VR and it does a terrific job in the dark.  Ok, I see those raised eyebrows over there... Knock it off!!!!!!