Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 29, 2003, 7:28 AM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 81
Default cameras with image stabilizer

hello
i own a panazonic dmc-zf1 and it has a 12x zoom and also a image stabilizer
i read that pictures taken with a zoom of 6x of more without tripod and without the image stabilizer make bad results
and now i have noticed that many brands are putting out new cameras with zooms of 10x and don't seem to have image stabilizer.
whats the point of this? the cameras have the stabilizer and they don't tell nothing about it? or they put the 10x zoom without the stabilizer and the results of using the full zoom wont be great?
i'd like someone explain me this a bit better cause the main reason to buy the dmc-fz1 was cause it had the image stabilizer like the olympus c-2100 and the Canon Pro 90IS.

thanks
v1p0n3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Sep 29, 2003, 8:41 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 394
Default OK

The general view is that stabilization gives you about 2 more F stops which would certainly help at times. If you have lots of light and can shoot with fast shutter speeds the stabilization will help also but you can still obtain a good photo with out it. I am sold on stabilization having owned a C-2100UZ and a FZ1 and now a Pro90. At 10X zoom or more hand holding a camera to frame your shot is much more difficult without stabilization. The proof is always in the results that each of us get in our photos. Like many other camera owners I wish there were more cameras with this feature.
normc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2003, 9:23 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,585
Default

I think the stalizer is a great feature for ultra zoom cameras, but that does not preclude one from shooting full zoom shots with a camera that does not have a stablizer. I just received the Olympus 740Z with a 10X zoom and have been able to shoot full zoom photos without the stalizer and hand held. What is wrong with using a tripod? There are many ways to stablize your camera without image stablization. Stablization can make better pictures but not always.
gibsonpd3620 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2003, 11:55 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,910
Default

The secret of long zoom handheld shots is to have the shutter speed at least 1/focal length (35mm equivalent). Of course in lower light this is not possible, more for daylight photos.

Regarding IS on tripod, some IS cameras actually shake a bit when on a tripod, so people have found it better to turn OFF the IS when on a tripod.
Mike_PEAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2003, 12:21 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 394
Default More

Two other work arounds for controling camera shake is a remote control for the shutter and a really good flash. I imagine the FZ1's do not have either because it is a low cost camera. I used a flash slave unit on my FZ1 even out of doors shooting into shade.
normc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2003, 2:31 PM   #6
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Using the Self Timer with a camera on the tripod also helps to prevent camera shake (due to movement when you're pressing the shutter button, depending on how sturdy your tripod is).

Nikon has a neat feature known as "Best Shot Selector" that I wish all manufacturers would incorporate (it's unique to Nikons).

With this mode enabled, you can press and hold the shutter button while it takes multiple photos. When you release the shutter button, it saves only one photo -- the sharpest one. It probably does this by saving the photo with the largest file size (a larger size means more detail was captured).

I've used this feature often to get sharper photos with slower shutter speeds with the Coolpix Cameras I've owned. It does not work with flash, but it's great for other types of photos when slower shutter speeds are desired.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2003, 6:21 PM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 81
Default

so which conclusion we take from this?
the image stabilizer is useless?
or it's worth? if it's worth why only a small number of cameras have this feature?
v1p0n3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2003, 6:29 PM   #8
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by v1p0n3
so which conclusion we take from this?
the image stabilizer is useless?
or it's worth? if it's worth why only a small number of cameras have this feature?
It all depends on how you are using the camera, and what lighting conditions and zoom lengths you are trying to shoot at. It's a very nice feature to have.

It can help you to get sharper hand held shots, than would be otherwise possible without a tripod.

The answer to your last question is cost. It costs more to produce a camera with a stablized lens.

One of the reasons that Cameras like the Olympus C-2100UZ and Canon Pro90IS are in such high demand on the used market, is that users want this feature.

Panasonic wisely saw an opportunity to produce a camera with a stabilized lens, and it has it's share of followers.

If the resolution were higher, I'm sure sales would be too.

According to some forum posters, there is a 4MP Panasonic camera planned with a stablized zoom lens. If true, then I suspect that sales will be much greater from it.

The brand new Minolta DiMAGE A1 is going to use a different technique. It will stablize the CCD, instead of the lens. The reviews on how well this works should be interesting.

Stablized Zoom lenses are common in video camera, but not in still cameras (yet).

However, as more and more digital camera users want longer zoom lenses, I suspect that we'll start seeing more still cameras with this feasture, too.

Users of Canon SLR's pay a premium for the Canon EF Mount Stablized Zoom Lenses. If they didn't think they were worth it, they wouldn't buy them.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2003, 9:26 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,585
Default

I think the conclusion is that you should not eliminate an ultrazoom just because it does not have IS.
gibsonpd3620 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2003, 9:34 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gibsonpd3620
I think the conclusion is that you should not eliminate an ultrazoom just because it does not have IS.
...even if some people say that anything above 6x is worthless without a tripod. Those of us who use UZ cameras have gotten great handheld UZ shots, my examples with the C-700 10x (38-380mm):

Full wide angle (38mm)
http://www.pbase.com/image/6328792
Full optical zoom (some digital snuck in, 407mm)
http://www.pbase.com/image/6328791
Full digital zoom (1020mm)
http://www.pbase.com/image/6328790
Mike_PEAT is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


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 12:40 AM.