Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 21, 2007, 2:07 PM   #31
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,528

cgl88 wrote:
It is really unfortunate that the general population considers only the Canon Rebel xti & Nikon D80. Sony alpha (a100) must therefore have a chip, because people think 'high noise at high iso.' BUT, XTi and D80 ...neither have anti-shake unless you buy VR lenses. In addition, High ISO (1600) shots constitute only 1% for me due to IS.

I really hope Sony ($600US) and Pentax up their marketing on this basis. Both have in-body image stabilization and allow me to take well-saturated night shots at ISO200, 1/10s, no shake, hand-held.
High ISO performance and anti-shake are simply 2 features of many. I put anti-shake squarly in the same 'overated' category as high iso performance. Both camps are guilty of the prejudice of "this is a feature every photographer needs". No, they are not.

Anti shake is a very beneficial feature when the photographer has a REQUIREMENT to take shots of non-moving subjects at shutter speeds they could not hand-hold without camera shake. There are some important aspects there - 1) non-moving subjects and 2) lower-than-handholdable shutter speeds. Those requirements don't apply to every shooter.

Now, high ISO performance can apply to SOME of the same situations (i.e. if a camera has acceptable ISO 1600 performance for the given shooter's expected quality they MAY be able to use ISO 1600 rather than 800 or 400 and be able to handhold). But you reach a point where even the highest ISO your camera provides may not give you fast enough shutter speeds. Also, high ISO has the benefit (as does wider apertures) of giving you faster shutter speeds. If your subject is moving, shutter speeds matter. Anti-shake does nothing to stop subject motion blur.

So, what's my point? Anti-shake and high ISO capability/performance are merely 2 of many features to consider against THE INDIVIDUAL SHOOTER's needs. For some people, NEITHER is required. For others NEEDS, anti-shake provides more benefit. For others NEEDS, high ISO performance is required. And in some cases, BOTH are beneficial. But the key is to match features against NEED. Just because I NEED high iso performance for what I do (sports work) - doesn't mean everyone does. Just becuse YOU find anti-shake beneficial for the type of photography you do, doesn't mean every shooter needs anti-shake. The idea is to find the BEST solutiono for the specific problem. Sometimes the BEST solution is: use a tripod or use a flash or use a faster lens. Relying on either high ISO or on anti-shake will produce substandard results.

JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2007, 9:06 PM   #32
Senior Member
monx's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 107

i Have to agree with johnG. Different shooter - different demands. I do a lot ofshooting in the chinese country side, and eventhough i always carry a 50mm 1.4D it doesn't always do the job not even if i start shooting iso1600. Ido think that even a moderately priced zoom lens stopped down a bit shooting at low iso with a noname flash bounced of the roof will be a killer combo in really low light!

so for me at least, i would count the expense of an external flash into the equation, when buying a camera.
monx is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:04 AM.