Guide

Quick photo tip: Why the image stabiliser should not always be switched on

David Lee
8.4.2019
Translation: machine translated

The image stabiliser sometimes does harm, and often it simply does no good. Here is an overview of when you must, may or may not activate the stabiliser.

Whether the image stabiliser is in the camera or in the lens: It is useful for exposure times that are too long to produce blur-free images. The stabiliser compensates for the shaking of your hand, which only becomes visible after a certain exposure time. The exposure time at which the problem occurs depends primarily on the focal length: Wide-angle shots blur far less quickly than telephoto shots. The other influences are explained in this article.

  • Guide

    Quick photo tip: How long can you expose without camera shake?

    by David Lee

Medium exposure times

If the camera only takes short exposures, the image stabiliser is not needed. However, it also does no harm if it is switched on. At most, the battery will run out a little faster.

Short exposure times are self-evident if it is bright enough. But even in low light, you need a short exposure if you want to take sharp pictures of people or other moving subjects.

The image stabiliser is useful for medium exposure times. It is not possible to say exactly how long "medium-long" is. With a 50mm lens, this would be around 1/50 of a second to half a second. With longer exposure times, the photos will be blurred even with a stabiliser.

Tripod and long exposures

I have often heard that the image stabiliser must be switched off when I take photos with a tripod or on a solid surface. The stabiliser supposedly worsens the result

However, I have never noticed this. I tested it again for this article. With my telephoto lens, I see no difference with and without the image stabiliser.

Once with ...
Once with ...
... and once without stabiliser. I would have liked to show the difference, but there isn't one here.
... and once without stabiliser. I would have liked to show the difference, but there isn't one here.

I've never understood why this should be the case. Is it a myth? Probably not. The problem just doesn't always occur. This explanation makes sense to me: Image stabilisers are optimised for relatively fast movements. They cannot reliably distinguish between complete standstill and very slow movements. In the worst case, the stabiliser tries to correct a non-existent slow movement and thus blurs the image.

The problem only occurs with certain stabilisers and in situations with a shutter speed of several seconds. As the image stabiliser is not needed on the tripod anyway, switch it off to be on the safe side. <p

27 people like this article


User Avatar
User Avatar

My interest in IT and writing landed me in tech journalism early on (2000). I want to know how we can use technology without being used. Outside of the office, I’m a keen musician who makes up for lacking talent with excessive enthusiasm.

These articles might also interest you

  • Guide

    Quick photo tip: How long can you expose without camera shake?

    by David Lee

  • Guide

    Quick photo tip: How to follow moving objects

    by David Lee

  • Guide

    Quick photo tip: Hold the camera correctly!

    by David Lee

25 comments

Avatar
later