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

View Poll Results: Is it worth going for an image stabiliser?
a) Go for it 6 100.00%
b) Dont go for it 0 0%
Voters: 6. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 2, 2007, 10:00 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4
Default

I aman amateur and am evaluating the costs and value of the image stabliser function. This function itself will cost be another $100 over say a Canon Powershot A530/540.

I understand from what I have read is that a image stabliser is a useful function is low light, very long tele (8 zoom plus) situations. If the use of this function is going to be very sparingly done, I am not sure whether its value enought to invest another $100-$150.

Pls advise.
ajay.gandhi is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 2, 2007, 11:05 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
bobbyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
Default

I have found IS to be quite useful even when using 3x zooms.
bobbyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2007, 12:42 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4
Default

Could you bea bit more specific?
ajay.gandhi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2007, 8:49 AM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4
Default

Pls help- speak up
ajay.gandhi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2007, 11:51 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
bobbyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
Default

Well I started with panasonic FZ1 which was a 12x zoom cam with IS. The IS was real helpful with that long zoom. You could hand hold at say 1/100sec with close to 420mm.

When I moved to canon dSLR, I did find the IS also helpful for my birding shots as it made me more mobile where I didn't have to use the tripod. Now I do have both IS and non-IS tele lenses (400mm) but can only use my non-IS lens at more than 1/500sec for sharp shots. If it had IS, I could easily do 1/125sec.

IS won't halp if subject is moving but it defnitely helps with camera shake. Lately I have bought panasonic FX01 which is 28-105 p&s cam. IS helps me here taking nice shots in low light.

Now if it is worth for you or not, I can't say. Some people are more prone to camera shake than others. But looking at the cost of high zoom p7s cams, I don't see much difference in price whether the camera has IS or not.

Which cams you interested in?
bobbyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2007, 12:01 PM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 12
Default

The usefulness of IS has nothing to do with the zoom factor. Cameras with 3X zoom benefit with IS by allowing slower shutter speeds to be used hand-held. I have a Leica digital camera and I can take hand-held pics at 1/15 second without any blur.
44Magpie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2007, 12:14 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

ajay.gandhi wrote:
Quote:
I aman amateur and am evaluating the costs and value of the image stabliser function. This function itself will cost be another $100 over say a Canon Powershot A530/540.

I understand from what I have read is that a image stabliser is a useful function is low light, very long tele (8 zoom plus) situations. If the use of this function is going to be very sparingly done, I am not sure whether its value enought to invest another $100-$150.

Pls advise.
Heres my take on IS:

I find it useful but not neccessarily a requirement. In my case, I have IS on my DSLR but not my compact camera. For acompact, my priorty was low noise in low light conditions. I went with a Fuji F30,which does not have IS but its low light results are superior to most other choices in its sensor size class. Two reasons it doesn't need IS is that I can shoot at higher ISO speeds and that allows me to run with a faster shutter speed. Not only does shooting high ISO reduce blur causes by hand shake, it also reduces motion blur. Also, it's zoom capability doesn't go that high so IS would not be a big advantage.In terms of a DSLR, I would not buy a camera without it because it truly minimizes the amount of times that I need to carry a tripod. Though I have no intentions ofbuying an Ultrazoom, I wouldnot buy one without IS.
meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2007, 12:16 PM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4
Default

Thanks for your message.Ifthe recommendation is w/o IS,I would go for a Canon PS A530/A540. However, ifIS is a must, it rules out Canon (710IS price is almost double) and the only option I have is to go for Nikon Coolpix L5 whichis still 50% more expensive than A530.Plscomment.
ajay.gandhi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2007, 12:18 PM   #9
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

44Magpie wrote:
Quote:
The usefulness of IS has nothing to do with the zoom factor.
Sure it does. For the same amount of camera shake, the affect on an image at 400mm will be much more pronounced than with a 28mm lens. Which is why there is a general 1 over focal length rule for hand holding. For example, it's pretty easy to hand-hold a 28mm for 1/60. Now, try 400mm at 1/60 - you're likely to see a lot more camera shake - even in a digicam. So, IS doesn't provide much of a benefit in this example if you're hand-holding at 28mm but it sure does if you're handholding at 400mm

Obviously in a DSLR the lenses are heavier/longer so it's more difficult to keep them steady.

In the end, Bobby is correct - whether IS is beneficial is a combination of both focal length AND the individual photographer's ability to hand-hold.


JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2007, 12:49 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

44Magpie wrote:
Quote:
The usefulness of IS has nothing to do with the zoom factor. Cameras with 3X zoom benefit with IS by allowing slower shutter speeds to be used hand-held. I have a Leica digital camera and I can take hand-held pics at 1/15 second without any blur.
The usefulness of IS haseverything to do with the zoom factor.

Though IS is beneficial at any focal length, it is more beneficial at longer focal lengths. A mere fraction of movement at close range is not as noticable, nor does it have the same potetial impact on blur. That does not hold true over longer distances where a fraction of movement can equate to anywhere from several inches to a footat the subject end.
meanstreak 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 1:03 AM.