Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   What Camera Should I Buy? (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/what-camera-should-i-buy-80/)
-   -   Entry level SDLR and image stabilization ? (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/what-camera-should-i-buy-80/entry-level-sdlr-image-stabilization-186203/)

Blaupunkt Apr 2, 2011 7:23 PM

Entry level SDLR and image stabilization ?
 
hi, for the last several years i have been using a Olympus 8080WZ to take all my photos but i am seriously thinking about entering the world of DSLR camera's

i have found that i really like to take close up shots of various insects small wild life etc and spur of the moment stuff in doors and out side.

i know you can get various lenses, so do i just need a body and the correct lens or is it possible to get a camera plus lens combo type of thing that will take "all types" of shots until i can afford a dedicated lens for X Y Z ?

secondly i have also been reading about the different type of image stabilization, either being in the body its self or in the lens, and that if you get image stabilization in the lens it will always look like it is moving slightly but that you can see it working so can compose your shots better ?

as you can probably tell i have no real knowledge of this or how it works, is it something i need to get and if so which of the 2 types would i be better off going for.

if anyone can point me in the right direction of what camera(s) i should be looking at and help me out in anyway possible it would be greatly appreciated!

:)

shoturtle Apr 2, 2011 7:45 PM

If you are looking for true macro you will not need IS as you will need to shoot on a tripod. If you are looking to shot handheld, you may want to look at something form Olympus, Pentax, or Sony as they used body IS.

TCav Apr 2, 2011 8:21 PM

Optical image stabilization (in the lens) and sensor shift image stabilization (in the body) are about equally effective. The difference is that, with IS in the body, ANY LENS will be stabilized, including 20+ year old lenses available on the used market, and all third party lenses. Canon and Nikon have a good selection of stabilized lenses, but they are bigger, heavier, and more expensive than, and often not as good as their unstabilized counterparts, and most third party lenses are not stabilized.

Also, while Canon and Nikon do have some stabilized macro lenses (Canon has 1, Nikon 2, and Sigma 1), all macro lenses for the Pentax and Sony mounts are stabilized, including some 20+ year old used lenses. So hand-held macrophotography is possible and even commonplace, but hand-held 1:1 macro is tough.

The advantage of using a dSLR is that you get to use lenses that are optimized for what you want to shoot; the disadvantage is that the one-size-fits-all jack-of-all-trades-and-master-of-none lenses aren't very good, and are often more expensive than better lenses that have less ambitious zoom ranges.

JohnG Apr 2, 2011 8:29 PM

Of course, as people that shoot macro will tell you, image stabilization isn't as effective for that type of work - because of the close focusing. So, planning on relying on image stabilization for that type of work is a bad idea. Tripods and/or flashes are a better method. Image stabilization is useful for some things but macro isn't one of them (because of the close focusing).

TCav Apr 2, 2011 8:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnG (Post 1214674)
Of course, as people that shoot macro will tell you, image stabilization isn't as effective for that type of work - because of the close focusing. So, planning on relying on image stabilization for that type of work is a bad idea. Tripods and/or flashes are a better method. Image stabilization is useful for some things but macro isn't one of them (because of the close focusing).

For 1:1 macro, I agree completely, but for 1:2 macro or less, it's not difficult to get excellent results handheld with IS.

shoturtle Apr 2, 2011 10:22 PM

For 1:2 your can just use a good zoom lens and add a good conversion lens, and all good zooms from nikon and canon has is. For true macro tripod is the only route to go with a macro lens, so is is not important.

Blaupunkt Apr 3, 2011 5:16 AM

ok thanks for that.

my thinking the with IS was to hopefully help a little in some situations, not just with macro, such as taking shots in the evening with low light :) also my girl friend seems to find it hard to take any sort of pics with the 8080wz, i was hoping this might help her out and cut down on camera shake/blurry images.

i am more of a hand held shoot what i see and hope for the best, maybe i should re evaluate my picture taking technique :)

is it fair to say any camera body will be fine even for a novice or are they some specific ones i should be looking at?

TCav Apr 3, 2011 7:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blaupunkt (Post 1214746)
is it fair to say any camera body will be fine even for a novice or are they some specific ones i should be looking at?

It depends on what you want to photograph. For general purpose photography, yes, any dSLR will do fine. But if you've got something specific in mind, there are brands and/or models that might be better than others.

TCav Apr 3, 2011 8:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shoturtle (Post 1214700)
For true macro tripod is the only route to go with a macro lens, so is is not important.

So why do you think the latest macro lenses from Canon, Nikon and Sigma have all been stabilized? Stabilized macro lenses cost 30-50% more than their unstabilized counterparts. That can be a lot of money if you're just going to put it on a tripod anyway.

JohnG Apr 3, 2011 8:53 AM

[QUOTE=Blaupunkt;1214746]ok thanks for that.

my thinking the with IS was to hopefully help a little in some situations, not just with macro, such as taking shots in the evening with low light :) also my girl friend seems to find it hard to take any sort of pics with the 8080wz, i was hoping this might help her out and cut down on camera shake/blurry images.

[\QUOTE]

Weather IS helps depends on the situation. It will help when your subject is non moving - so taking photos in a museum, low light landscape/cityscape shots. But if the subject is human, IS provides limited benefit because the blur in photos is at least partially subject movement. In those cases, flash is the proper and preferred photographic technique. Using an external flash bounced off a wall or ceiling will produce much better results. Now, for standard shooting, it's not much of an issue - all the kit lenses in Canon & nikon have image stabilization, including telephoto 2nd lenses comparably priced to offerings from other manufacturers.

Having said that, I thought it worth mentioning - are both you and the girlfriend planning on using the viewfinder to compose/take photos or are you planning on using the LCD? If you're planning on using the LCD, then Sony is really the only truly usable live-view implementation for general purpose photography. For other systems, using live-view requires a shift in technology used for auto focus and performance is slow.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:25 PM.