snubbr.com

Image Stabalization... who needs it?
I've been looking at a DSLR and my budget leads me to the XTI (or maybe the upcoming XSI) but all the negative feedback about the xti's kit lens is puzzling. How bad can it be? As far as I can tell, the "upgraded" lens is only different in that it has an image stabilization feature (and i'm not even sure what that really means)..

My experience with an IS feature has been the little "anti shake" options on old point & shoot digital cameras that always made the image look too digital (ie, pixilated or overly "smoothed" and overall just plain fake)..

I just did a side-by-side on several dslrs and noticed that most of them dont actually have any sort of IS feature. So whats all the fuss?..

Comments (30)

Olympus, Sony, Pentax DSLRs have image stabilisation built into the body making every lens attached a stabilised lens. This is real physical stabilistation, not high ISO cheat stabilsiation. It is very useful at telephoto lengths and for shooting flexibility in low light conditions. However, as DSLRs are better at higher ISO than compact cameras it is not so essential.John.Please visit me at:http://www.pbase.com/johnfr/backtothebridgehttp://www.pbase.com/johnfr/digital_dartmoor..

Comment #1

Image stabilization can help you get sharper images when you are in areas when you can't or won't use a flash. if you often take pictures in those situations, then it will be useful for you..

The anti shake you are talkng about in point and shoot cameras is a form of cheating and the results usually show that it doesn't work very well..

If you use a flash often or don't usually take images in places where a flash is needed, then IS may be less useful for you..

Many cameras have VR built into the body, but Canon and Nikon build them into the lenses.Chris, Broussard, LA..

Comment #2

John farrar wrote:.

Olympus, Sony, Pentax DSLRs have image stabilisation built into thebody making every lens attached a stabilised lens. This is realphysical stabilistation, not high ISO cheat stabilsiation. It is veryuseful at telephoto lengths and for shooting flexibility in low lightconditions. However, as DSLRs are better at higher ISO than compactcameras it is not so essential.John..

So... aside from casual shooting in unknown conditions/situations, my main purpose in looking for a DSLR is photographing paintings, on a tripod, with studio lighting..

Are you saying then, that the IS feature is not all that important for me?.

I'm leaning toward either the Canon XTI or the Olympus e510 and as far as I can tell the Olympus' only advantage is the stabilization. If it's not all that important, the canon pulls ahead, right? The one thing that concerns me about the Olympus is the 4/3 lens thing. Doesn't this compromise image quality?..

Comment #3

Bikinchris wrote:.

Many cameras have VR built into the body, but Canon and Nikon buildthem into the lenses.Chris, Broussard, LA.

...Which, in turn, drives up the lens costs, right? How significantly? Other advantages/disadvantages? Any comment on the 4/3 lens thing that I mentioned above?..

Comment #4

Of course, we got by for years without any form of image stabilisation except out own sense, so you could say that it's not essential..

However, image stabilisation extends the usable range of the camera and doesn't have a negative effect on IQ. It's a proven technology whichever way you go (in-body or in-lens), so why not use it..

Personally, I favour the in-body path as the range of reasonably priced lenses available new and second hand is huge and they will all be stabilised (they seem to be physically smaller too). If you can afford it, either way will do the job..

Malcy.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Http://www.flickr.com/photos/malcy/setshttp://picasaweb.google.com/lumachrome..

Comment #5

4/3 lenses made by Olympus or Leica are of very high quality, they are just physically smaller as the sensor in the camera is smaller. The 4/3 cameras seem to be capable of excellent quality images. I don't think that the entry level Canon DSLR has any advantage in this area..

Take a look at Pentax and Sony too. The liveview feature on the new Sony A300/A350 or the Olympus E510 would be very useful for tripod work. The new Pentaxes look excellent as well..

-Malcy.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Http://www.flickr.com/photos/malcy/setshttp://picasaweb.google.com/lumachrome..

Comment #6

Ebineesey wrote:.

Bikinchris wrote:.

Many cameras have VR built into the body, but Canon and Nikon buildthem into the lenses.Chris, Broussard, LA.

...Which, in turn, drives up the lens costs, right? Howsignificantly?.

Sometimes it does drive up the lens price. Not usually great amounts, but yes..

Other advantages/disadvantages?.

Advantage is that you don't pay for something you don't need if you don't want to. Disadvantage- if it;s not there and youy need it. But like the other guy said, we have been taking images for a long time without stabilization, so good technique is what makes images, not features..

Any comment on the 4/3 lens thing that I mentioned above?.

4/3 cameras can take good images too. If you are copying painting with studio lights, then almost any camera can make good images..

What you need to worry about is more in the area of color management than sensors..

For what you are talking about, taking images of paintings with lights, with the camera you listed, you want the body and a micro lens with a focal length of about 60mm. This lens is sharper than zoom lenses and usually better glass means better color..

Chris, Broussard, LA..

Comment #7

Nikon's page detailing their in-lens VR technology is interesting and makes for some good arguments over the in-body stabilization approaches. Make sure you click on the links for the different aspects of the system....

Http://nikonimaging.com/global/technology/vr/index.htm.

Its a good feature to have if one anticipates hand held shots in low light with low shutter speeds or when the shutter speed is lower than the 1/focal length rule of thumb (eg using a 300-mm lerns at 1/250-second). Unless one is very experienced and has good-great hand holding techniques to steady the camera at the time of pushing the shutter, VR will help..

Keep in mind that it's only for user-induced camera/lens motion and not subject motion. The claimed '2-4 stop advantage' relates to being able to gain steadiness and using a lower shutter speed for a given ISO/aperture..

In general, there are arguments for both in-body and in-lens IS/OS/VR. It would appear that in-body works but only at time of shutter actuation whereas in-lens allows for stabilization while composing in the view finder and can be tailored to the individual lens' features/focal length. P&S systems like the Panasonics' OIS (Optical Image Stabilization) is a form of in-body for their fixed lenses..

Telecorder (Dave)FZee30+RD-S+OlyTC1.7XDee50+Nikon 35mm F2.0D-AF+Nikkor18-70DX+Tam70-300-macro-LD+BIGMA 50-500 EX HSM(Coming soon - Nikon 70-300 VR!)My Image Galleries.

Http://www.nikonians-images.com/...hp?cat=500&ppuser=121399&password=.

Http://Telecorder.smugmug.com/..

Comment #8

So... aside from casual shooting in unknown conditions/situations, my main purpose in looking for a DSLR is photographing paintings, on a tripod, with studio lighting..

Are you saying then, that the IS feature is not all that important for me? >>.

On a tripod the image stabilisation on my DSLR has to be turned off! For those odd times when you need some stabilisation simply put a little beanbag in with your camera kit, when used in conjunction with the self-timer or remote release it's a really good way to level the camera and keep it stable whilst resting on something like a rock or a table. And you get away from that oh-so-boring human eye level viewpoint..

I'm leaning toward either the Canon XTI or the Olympus e510 and as far as I can tell the Olympus' only advantage is the stabilization. If it's not all that important, the canon pulls ahead, right? The one thing that concerns me about the Olympus is the 4/3 lens thing. Doesn't this compromise image quality? >>.

There's a mega can of worms lurking here with a wide open door to Fanboy Central! The 4/3 sensor is smaller so you don't get quite the same enlargement potential or quite as much creative DOF control. Olympus lenses are however generally of higher quality, and of course not so bulky. Canon or Nikon are better supported at the 'after-market' level, meaning that in addition to their own class leading systems you can buy a full range of third party lenses and accessories..

Pros tend to use Canon and Nikon not just because of this but because of a better marketing set-up and pool potential as well. This does not mean that picture editors will 'refuse' Olympus (or other brand DSLR) shots; just that at the working level Canon and Nikon have most of the market and contiune to give it what it demands. It's kind of like the situation that pertained with Mac vs. PC in the UK print/publishing industry as DTP took over - users stayed with the Mac because that's what they started with and could share with each other. Then cross platform compatibility came on the scene and grew so that today it really doesn't matter what system is used. Camera mounts however are still in the dark ages of restrictive marketing.

As a cynic might expect, the 4/3 system has met with considerable resistance. All I can say to someone with an open mind is take a look on PBase.com of Flikr and search for your kind of subject photos taken by the cameras of your choice..

John.Please visit me at:http://www.pbase.com/johnfr/backtothebridgehttp://www.pbase.com/johnfr/digital_dartmoor..

Comment #9

Ebineesey wrote:.

So... aside from casual shooting in unknown conditions/situations, mymain purpose in looking for a DSLR is photographing paintings, on atripod, with studio lighting..

For tripod or studio shooting, you fill find image stabilization pretty useless. Most of the Canon lenses produced today will not require you to turn off the IS when you mount to a tripod..

Are you saying then, that the IS feature is not all that importantfor me?.

I don't think any of us can say for certain that it shouldn't be that important to you, but based on how/where you plan to shoot, it shouldn't be a major consideraton..

I'm leaning toward either the Canon XTI or the Olympus e510 and asfar as I can tell the Olympus' only advantage is the stabilization.If it's not all that important, the canon pulls ahead, right? The onething that concerns me about the Olympus is the 4/3 lens thing.Doesn't this compromise image quality?.

"compromise image quality" is a difficult question to answer. The 2x crop factor does have an effect on the depth of field compared to 1.5 or 1.6 crop sensor with a similar size and aperature lense shot from the same distance, but some people will want that. Is the canon better? Well, that is subjective, you need to decide that. One thing I considered is the availablity of lenses and accessories when I purchased my first DSLR. Pretty much every photo store stocks Canon and Nikon...I could get what I wanted, when I wanted it...

Comment #10

Ebineesey wrote:.

I've been looking at a DSLR and my budget leads me to the XTI (ormaybe the upcoming XSI) but all the negative feedback about the xti'skit lens is puzzling. How bad can it be? As far as I can tell, the"upgraded" lens is only different in that it has an imagestabilization feature (and i'm not even sure what that really means)..

The kit 18-55 with the XTi, isn't a "great" lense, but it isn't a bad lens either. You can search pbase for samples and you will see that it isn't too bad...just not a Canon "L". The newer 18-55 IS is more than just adding IS, it's optics have also been redesigned and is reported to be better that the older non-IS version..

One thing about image stabilization, IS was conceived to reduce camera shake. Camera shake is noticable at slower shutter speeds. Despite some rumours and some advertising, it does not stop subject motion. If you take a picture of a person running or playing soccer, you need a fast shutter speed, it doesn't matter if you have IS or not, the only way to stop action is to speed up the shutter (but there are a number of ways to do bump up the shutter speed)...

Comment #11

I find that I don't use image stabalization near as much as I thougt I would. I primarily take images of birds. Most of the time I use a tripod because, no matter what people might say, you get very very sharp images that way. With birds and wildlife often being far away and skiddish, high shutter speeds and high ISO preformance is the way to go and no IS will help much..

However, I do hand hold many in-flight pictures, but again, high shutter speed is the answer, not IS, IMO. I have several IS (or VR in the Nikon world) but turn off the stabalization much of the time..

Another point is time lag. It takes time for the IS to kick in. When you're tracking a bird or grabbing that fast shot. the IS just doesn't kick in fast enough..

I've got some friends with in-camera IS, and to me it's not even close. You can't even see the IS at work during composing. I'd much rather have it in the lens. When you half press the shutter, you can see the IS kicking in and the image locks down before your eyes..

Anyway, just my point or view..

Below is a hand held shot at 500mm with no stabalization. Not perfect, but not bad..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comment #12

Those fake "IS" features on compact cameras are not optical stabilisers..

Nobody really needs IS. A tripod is still more useful, although IS can help on long lenses to reduce vibrations..

Http://www.pbase.com/arshutterbug/..

Comment #13

Shutter speed : 0.0008, so really not a great example..

Guidenet wrote:.

Below is a hand held shot at 500mm with no stabalization. Notperfect, but not bad..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comment #14

Guidenet wrote:.

I find that I don't use image stabalization near as much as I thougtI would. I primarily take images of birds. Most of the time I use atripod because, no matter what people might say, you get very verysharp images that way. With birds and wildlife often being far awayand skiddish, high shutter speeds and high ISO preformance is the wayto go and no IS will help much..

I primarily take pictures on my vacation. Most of the time I can't use a tripod. Sometimes it's because I'm flying in small planes and weight restrictions mean I have to choose between a tripod and clothing (or worse, a tripod and extra lenses)..

Neither tripods nor flashes are allowed in churches..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

1/13s f/5.6 at 160.0mm iso800.

4 stops of stabilization handheld - the alternative would have been to crank the ISO up to 1600, but I'd still have been shooting at 3 stops of stabilization, plus picked up more noise in the dark sections of the ceiling..

However, I do hand hold many in-flight pictures, but again, highshutter speed is the answer, not IS, IMO. I have several IS (or VR inthe Nikon world) but turn off the stabalization much of the time..

Sometimes you're lucky to get a shot at all, never mind trying for high shutter speeds..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

1/5s f/5.6 at 24.0mm iso3200.

Carlsbad Caverns, no tripod, no flash. Maximum ISO. Almost 3 stops of stabilization..

Or you're in the depths of a crowded narrow alleyway market in Cusco and you want to capture colour. No chance to set up a tripod..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

1/30s f/5.6 at 135.0mm iso400 - two stops of stabilization..

Another point is time lag. It takes time for the IS to kick in. Whenyou're tracking a bird or grabbing that fast shot. the IS justdoesn't kick in fast enough..

AFAIK There's no time lag with in-body stabilization..

I've got some friends with in-camera IS, and to me it's not evenclose. You can't even see the IS at work during composing. I'd muchrather have it in the lens. When you half press the shutter, you cansee the IS kicking in and the image locks down before your eyes..

Anyway, just my point or view..

As the contrary is my own point of view..

Below is a hand held shot at 500mm with no stabalization. Notperfect, but not bad..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comment #15

Sigezar wrote:.

Shutter speed : 0.0008, so really not a great example..

My point was that I choose a faster shutter speed for inflight birds. This image was: Exposure time 1/1250 sec...

Comment #16

Dennis Phillips wrote:.

Another point is time lag. It takes time for the IS to kick in. Whenyou're tracking a bird or grabbing that fast shot. the IS justdoesn't kick in fast enough..

AFAIK There's no time lag with in-body stabilization..

I'm not sure you could tell. You can't see the stabalization happening in the viewfinder as you can with in-lens VR.

I've got some friends with in-camera IS, and to me it's not evenclose. You can't even see the IS at work during composing. I'd muchrather have it in the lens. When you half press the shutter, you cansee the IS kicking in and the image locks down before your eyes..

Anyway, just my point or view..

As the contrary is my own point of view..

Mostly, it looks like we take different types of images. IS might work for you. It seems less important for my kind of photography. A tripod is part of my kit. I take it and/or a monopod everywhere. I find that my images improve dramatically with a firm and stable tripod over VR...

Comment #17

If you are only taking pictures with your cam on a tripod: no IS needed at all..

I myself choose the Olympus E-3 over the D300. For MY purpose it's about the ideal camera at the moment. I travel and I do not want to lug around a whole bag full of lenses and still have top quality results. The Olympus can give me that; in just 2 lenses I have the whole range from 24 to 400 mm (film) covered with top quality glass. Besides that it's a very sturdy, weatherproof cam (and you hardly hear anything about sensordust with Olympus/being 510 or E-3: very effective)..

I personal do not care for High Iso shots (up from ISO 1600), and I never use any flash (thanks to great glass and IS)..

If I would need ISO's above 1600 I probably would choose Nikon D300, but then most of the advantages of the Olympus system would be gone..

I like to shoot at ISO 100 and maximum ISO 400; the highest quality possible on ANY cam. The IS can be very helpful in low light situations where I still want to keep the ISO's low..

In the past I shot with several Nikons (film); FM2/F4/F100, and all where very good machines. I always shot at ISO 50 (Velvia film). At this moment Olympus serves me better. To YOU that might be different; take a close look and try each cam. I certainly would NOT worry about IQ of Olympus: it's absolutely tops!..

Comment #18

Ebineesey wrote:.

John farrar wrote:.

Olympus, Sony, Pentax DSLRs have image stabilisation built into thebody making every lens attached a stabilised lens. This is realphysical stabilistation, not high ISO cheat stabilsiation. It is veryuseful at telephoto lengths and for shooting flexibility in low lightconditions. However, as DSLRs are better at higher ISO than compactcameras it is not so essential.John..

So... aside from casual shooting in unknown conditions/situations, mymain purpose in looking for a DSLR is photographing paintings, on atripod, with studio lighting..

Are you saying then, that the IS feature is not all that importantfor me?.

I'm leaning toward either the Canon XTI or the Olympus e510 and asfar as I can tell the Olympus' only advantage is the stabilization.If it's not all that important, the canon pulls ahead, right? The onething that concerns me about the Olympus is the 4/3 lens thing.Doesn't this compromise image quality?.

Yes. Buy a camera with as large a piece of Silicon as you can afford...and with as few pixels as you can put up with..

Charlie DavisNikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D300HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Comment #19

Touched on these points and I would like to concur with him and elaborate. It does help in shooting moving objects to some extent as it stops rapid vibration, especially verticle, while you panand we all get a little careless. In body does not have any delayI've heard this is a problem with some in lens systems. You are correct, it doesn't stabilize what you see in the viewfinder, but, if the image is so unsteady in the viewfinder that that is an issue no amount of stabization will help, and probably not even higher shutter speedunless it is REAL high will help much. The fact that you are still forced into good shooting discipline and reminded by movement in the viewfinder is an advantage of inbody stabilization IMHO. It is essential in museums and churches where often neither flash or tripod is allowed...

Comment #20

Guidenet wrote:.

Another point is time lag. It takes time for the IS to kick in. When you're trackinga bird or grabbing that fast shot. the IS just doesn't kick in fast enough..

You can always half-press the shutter to activate the IS. The IS stays on for 3 seconds or so, plenty long enough. If I'm tracking a moving target, I just continue half-tapping the shutter release. Then there is zero delay when I take the shot..

Http://www.pbase.com/digirob..

Comment #21

ARShutterbug wrote:.

Nobody really needs IS. A tripod is still more useful, although IScan help on long lenses to reduce vibrations..

I much prefer to use a tripod, but it's often left behind on long hikes (>10 miles). IS is sometimes the only way that I can get a shot.Davehttp://pixseal.com..

Comment #22

You guys have high standards. I think this is a great shot and would make me smile all day and into the night. Would you mind telling what brand and model of camera and lens.RW..

Comment #23

I also wondered how important image stabilization is. I'm looking to buy my first DSLR, and have been doing research on several brands, and reading the forums..

I noticed that that on the Olympus forum, the topic of IS is discussed often. Many praise it as a useful feature. (Oly cameras use in body IS).

But on the Nikon forum the topic of image stabilization (or VR, vibration reduction, as Nikon refers to it) get much less mention. In fact, of the large number of lenses that Nikon produces, only 14 of them have the VR feature.Image stabilization (VR) doesn't get talked about much..

So I asked the Nikon forum folks why image stabilization wasn't a hot topic as it is on other forums. Their collective answer, in a nutshell, was that given cameras with low noise at higher ISOs and lenses with large apertures, image stabilizaion was not important, except perhaps with long focal length lenses. Nikon users have been getting along just fine without IS..

To read what they say, click on this:.

Http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1002&message=26410505..

Comment #24

Essentially, that;s it in a nut shell..

High ISO performance gives superb images, with little to no noise artifiacts..

With this being teh case, there is litle need for stabilzation. Unless, of course, the camera brand you use does not perform as well , as regards high ISO noise..

One reason I switched over to Canon from Minolta (now Sony).

Minolta (now Sony ) had stabilization in teh camera body, so every lens benefited. However, the benefit was much less than my Canon IS lens yields..

So, If my Canon performs so flawlessly, giving low noise\high ISO images, why did I buy a $2k IS lens? To shoot in darn near pitch black conditions, of course..

Night football games, marching band daughter, warming up, out of the lights, I get great pics..

BigBen08 wrote:.

I also wondered how important image stabilization is. I'm looking tobuy my first DSLR, and have been doing research on several brands,and reading the forums..

I noticed that that on the Olympus forum, the topic of IS isdiscussed often. Many praise it as a useful feature. (Oly cameras usein body IS).

But on the Nikon forum the topic of image stabilization (or VR,vibration reduction, as Nikon refers to it) get much less mention.In fact, of the large number of lenses that Nikon produces, only 14of them have the VR feature.Image stabilization (VR) doesn't get talked about much..

So I asked the Nikon forum folks why image stabilization wasn't a hottopic as it is on other forums. Their collective answer, in anutshell, was that given cameras with low noise at higher ISOs andlenses with large apertures, image stabilizaion was not important,except perhaps with long focal length lenses. Nikon users have beengetting along just fine without IS..

To read what they say, click on this:.

Http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1002&message=26410505.

Dave PattersonMidwestshutterbug.com'When the light and composition are strong, nobodynotices things like resolution or pincushion distortion'Gary Friedman..

Comment #25

BigBen08 wrote:.

I also wondered how important image stabilization is. I'm looking tobuy my first DSLR, and have been doing research on several brands,and reading the forums..

I noticed that that on the Olympus forum, the topic of IS isdiscussed often. Many praise it as a useful feature. (Oly cameras usein body IS).

But on the Nikon forum the topic of image stabilization (or VR,vibration reduction, as Nikon refers to it) get much less mention.In fact, of the large number of lenses that Nikon produces, only 14of them have the VR feature.Image stabilization (VR) doesn't get talked about much..

So I asked the Nikon forum folks why image stabilization wasn't a hottopic as it is on other forums. Their collective answer, in anutshell, was that given cameras with low noise at higher ISOs andlenses with large apertures, image stabilizaion was not important,except perhaps with long focal length lenses. Nikon users have beengetting along just fine without IS..

To read what they say, click on this:.

Http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1002&message=26410505.

To a man with a hammer, all problems look like nails..

Which means that if you don't have a lot of stabilized lens choices, then either you claim that you don't need image stabilization or else you find some compromise workaround..

All exposures are a blend of ISO sensitivity, shutter speed, and aperture. What image stabilization does is to give you more flexibility in one of those measures (shutter speed) so that you can optimize the other measures (lower ISOs for a cleaner image or stop down apertures for greater DoF)..

What in-body image stabilization offers is the opportunity to use a fast high quality prime lens like an 85mm f/1.4, which gives the photographer wider latitude in his selection of ISO or aperture..

But if I don't have that option (does Nikon have a stabilized 85mm prime lens), then I'll just have to recognize that my exposure choices are limited, and I'll have to find some compromise way to work around it..

Image stabilization is a useful tool. Not having it limits your choices. Having it on all your lenses widens your choices...

Comment #26

BigBen08 wrote:.

I also wondered how important image stabilization is. I'm looking tobuy my first DSLR, and have been doing research on several brands,and reading the forums..

I noticed that that on the Olympus forum, the topic of IS isdiscussed often. Many praise it as a useful feature. (Oly cameras usein body IS).

But on the Nikon forum the topic of image stabilization (or VR,vibration reduction, as Nikon refers to it) get much less mention.In fact, of the large number of lenses that Nikon produces, only 14of them have the VR feature.Image stabilization (VR) doesn't get talked about much..

So I asked the Nikon forum folks why image stabilization wasn't a hottopic as it is on other forums. Their collective answer, in anutshell, was that given cameras with low noise at higher ISOs andlenses with large apertures, image stabilizaion was not important,except perhaps with long focal length lenses. Nikon users have beengetting along just fine without IS..

To read what they say, click on this:.

The majority of Nikon (and Canon) users are "old-time" photographers that RESIST "CHANGE". They resist anything new. They laughed at auto-focus when Minolta introduced it. They voraciously resist the possibility of a professionally usable EVF..

I am also a 45+ year photographer, and I admit to resisting "some" things, (like "program" modes); BUT .... I welcome VR, and in-body IS..

(I also dream about a pro-level EVF (and EVIL camrea)..

Http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1002&message=26410505.

Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto.

( Do You Ever STOP to THINK and FORGET to START Again ??? )..

Comment #27

Midwest Shutterbug wrote:.

Essentially, that;s it in a nut shell..

High ISO performance gives superb images, with little to no noiseartifiacts.With this being teh case, there is litle need for stabilzation.Unless, of course, the camera brand you use does not perform as well, as regards high ISO noise..

BUT ... I still like L-O-N-G exposures for deliberate subject movement. (especially water-flows).

One reason I switched over to Canon from Minolta (now Sony).

Minolta (now Sony ) had stabilization in teh camera body, so everylens benefited. However, the benefit was much less than my Canon ISlens yields..

So, If my Canon performs so flawlessly, giving low noise\high ISOimages, why did I buy a $2k IS lens? To shoot in darn near pitchblack conditions, of course..

Night football games, marching band daughter, warming up, out of thelights, I get great pics..

BigBen08 wrote:.

I also wondered how important image stabilization is. I'm looking tobuy my first DSLR, and have been doing research on several brands,and reading the forums..

I noticed that that on the Olympus forum, the topic of IS isdiscussed often. Many praise it as a useful feature. (Oly cameras usein body IS).

But on the Nikon forum the topic of image stabilization (or VR,vibration reduction, as Nikon refers to it) get much less mention.In fact, of the large number of lenses that Nikon produces, only 14of them have the VR feature.Image stabilization (VR) doesn't get talked about much..

So I asked the Nikon forum folks why image stabilization wasn't a hottopic as it is on other forums. Their collective answer, in anutshell, was that given cameras with low noise at higher ISOs andlenses with large apertures, image stabilizaion was not important,except perhaps with long focal length lenses. Nikon users have beengetting along just fine without IS..

To read what they say, click on this:.

Http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1002&message=26410505.

Dave PattersonMidwestshutterbug.com'When the light and composition are strong, nobodynotices things like resolution or pincushion distortion'Gary Friedman.

Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto.

( Do You Ever STOP to THINK and FORGET to START Again ??? )..

Comment #28

RickW58 wrote:.

You guys have high standards. I think this is a great shot andwould make me smile all day and into the night. Would you mindtelling what brand and model of camera and lens.RW.

Nikon D300 and a Tamron 200-500. Thank you...

Comment #29

I do.I took this photo today. Hand held IS on and no flash..

Http://www.pbase.com/zippyzx3/image/92747276Tim.

My Gallery - http://www.pbase.com/zippyzx3Minolta 7000, Sony A100..

Comment #30

Click Here to View All...

Sponsored Amazon Deals:

1. Get big savings on Amazon warehouse deals.
2. Save up to 70% on Amazon Products.


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.