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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 29, 2007, 1:11 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 824
Default

JohnG wrote:
Quote:
IMO the dust cleaning is a nice to have but I wouldn't pay $50 for it. Cleaning a sensor is no big deal - I do it about every 6 months and it takes all of 15 minutes.
. . .
Ah, but most people do spend at least* $50 for dust cleaning, either in the additional tools necessary for it, or for professional cleaning services.

*Visibledust products:
Arctic butterfly kit: $162.37
Arctic butterfly sensor brush: $64.02

Copperhill products:
Basic sensor cleaning kit: $31.95
Wet/dry kit: $41.95
Mega kit: $61.95
Sensorsweep: $24.95
Brush-on-the-fly w/juice: $45.95

Not to count the value of the time invested.

On another note; merely leaving your lens on is no assurance of preventing dust, either. Some unsealed zoom lenses have the annoying habit of sucking dust in through their seals as they are zoomed.


Norm in Fujino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2007, 5:22 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 183
Default

I don't believe either is a gimmick as long as it's functional.You can search many reviews/comparisons of the effectiveness of dust-removal systems, Some are better than others. As far as IS goes, those who have posted it's most useful on long lenses at slower shutter speeds are absolutely right.

I think this may soon be a moot discussion, however, as the last batch of new DSLR's introduced by various manufacturers are all beginning to incorporate these features in some form or another. Back in the day, you paid extra for a self-defrosting freezer, or a self-cleaning oven. Power windows and locks, air-conditioning, and even a radio were considered premium options on cars. Today even anti-lock brakes, once considered a luxury, are standard on some entry-level automobiles. It's what the buying public is demanding. Same with cameras. Olympus recently released the E-510 which incorporates both dust-reduction and IS; and look at the Pentax K10...both are mid-price level DSLR's. I believe in a few years it will be difficult to find a DSLR without these features.
stowaway7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2007, 8:26 AM   #13
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 51
Default

Quote:
But if you don't have it, you can't turn it on
That's my opinion - easy to turn off features, pretty darn hard to add them to a camera.

TJ -

Norm in Fujino


Same person as @ BT3Central? The one who's helped so many there......and IIRC steered me here when I was looking for my 1st digi-cam? :-)
Bailey59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 30, 2007, 1:42 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 133
Default

JohnG wrote:
Quote:
IMO I have a Canon DSLR and a couple IS lenses and several non-IS lenses. To me, IS has never been a useful enough feature that I would pay extra for it.
But you did pay extra for it since you have two IS lenses. In fact a lot extra times two.

When it's built-in to the camera it doesn't add much to the price.


Gozinta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 30, 2007, 4:48 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

gryphonslair99 wrote:
Quote:
introduction of IS in short focal length glass is pure unadultrated lazyness. I guess if you are just wanting to be a picture taker and don't care about taking a photograph, just a picture that is in focus a little better then, enough said. They still is something to be said for learning and practicing proper photographic technique. On long glass IS has it's place.
Well there you are wrong.... and in fact are most of the very people that complain IS/SR is not effective enough (SR or lens).... but for those with a staedy hand to begin with... it can be the difference between not having to use a flash and no choice (but time, space and hauling a heffty tripod along (or why really bother in any kind of wind/josseling, etc).... or ability of shooting a long lens at a higher f/ for DOF in low light.

There are all kinds of reasons for it, but it is NOT a cure all, just a great aid to those with good skills/habits.

I have not had to physically clean my K10D sensor yet but have successfully shaken off dust when I have seen it, so far.

Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 30, 2007, 11:00 PM   #16
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Gozinta wrote:
Quote:
But you did pay extra for it since you have two IS lenses. In fact a lot extra times two.

When it's built-in to the camera it doesn't add much to the price.
The lenses in question: 28-135 and 100-400 are fantastic lenses worth their price with or without IS. I bought them for that reason - not because they had IS.

In all honesty I get a hoot out of this almost desperate devotion by IS people - it really is as bad as megapixel people - "oh my, if you don't have 10mp you can't take a good thumb-nail picture". Sorry, but IS just isn't the end-all and be-all of photography. I hate to burst your bubble. But to me at least there are far more imporant features in a camera system than whether it has in-body IS.

We each have different opinions. And in mine, IS simply isn't a critical factor. You feel differently and that's OK.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 30, 2007, 11:21 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

But once again WE are not the SCREAMERS about it other than a very effective TOOL.


NOT A CURE ALL


Find me ANY thread here on this subject that the obverwhelming number of those who are fans of IS (if you can bear the REPETITIVE costs) or SR said anything (essentially) BUT YOU MUST have at least the ability to shoot a sharp 50mm or less NON IS 15/th sec shot....

Can't do that then forget current IS/SR being of any great help to you. (no offense meant to anyone)... just what the situation is today.


Think of it this way... just compensation for that least moment unpredicatle little hiccup... vs IS system bouncing around like a pinball.

And better IS systems (At least on the SR's) do seem to home in on minor constantly osccilating movement.. (we all have trying to stand still, freestanding.) then fillter that and work from there when you hit the half press.
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2007, 12:07 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

Hayward wrote:
Quote:
gryphonslair99 wrote:
Quote:
introduction of IS in short focal length glass is pure unadultrated lazyness. I guess if you are just wanting to be a picture taker and don't care about taking a photograph, just a picture that is in focus a little better then, enough said. They still is something to be said for learning and practicing proper photographic technique. On long glass IS has it's place.
Well there you are wrong.... and are the very people that complain IS is not effective enough.... but for those with a steady hand to begin with... it can be the difference between not having to use a flash and no choice.... or ability of shooting a long lens at a higher f/ for DOF in low light.

There are all kinds of reasons for it, but it is NOT a cure all, just a great aid to those with good skills/habits.

I have not had to physically clean my K10D sensor yet but have successfully shaken off dust when I have seen it.
I've come to the conclusion that most people who have used IS really appreciate it. There will always be a few that have it but insist they don't really need it. There will always be those that bought a camera without it and have to justify not havingit or imply that "real photographers" don't need it. Pure fiction in my book.... Simply put, IS works and it works great. It's not a remedy for everything, but I know I have taken shots that were simply not possible otherwise. I've taken pictures in places where tripods were not allowed and having IS got meshots that would not have been possible and I know it alsoimproved shots that I could have taken without IS. I haven't used a camera with a built in dust shaker, but I'm sure it can't hurt.

Lets face it... any time atechnology gains momentum in the photography world, it will also encountersome resistance to change. There are those that don't feel they need autofocus or other auto settngs that cameras have these days. Then we have those that will only shoot with prime lenses or low power zooms.There are still plenty who don't likedigital. Some of them have real reasons for their beliefs, but some are just snobs.The best are the ones that insist that only one or two brands will do and all else is junk. Of course, "real photographers" can take great pictures with just about any camera and without all the bells and whistles. I say to each his own in terms of cameras, options and accessories. Myself.... I'd rather have all the tools at mydisposal.
meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2007, 2:07 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 133
Default

JohnG wrote:
Quote:
Gozinta wrote:
Quote:
But you did pay extra for it since you have two IS lenses. In fact a lot extra times two.

When it's built-in to the camera it doesn't add much to the price.
The lenses in question: 28-135 and 100-400 are fantastic lenses worth their price with or without IS. I bought them for that reason - not because they had IS.

In all honesty I get a hoot out of this almost desperate devotion by IS people - it really is as bad as megapixel people - "oh my, if you don't have 10mp you can't take a good thumb-nail picture". Sorry, but IS just isn't the end-all and be-all of photography. I hate to burst your bubble. But to me at least there are far more imporant features in a camera system than whether it has in-body IS.

We each have different opinions. And in mine, IS simply isn't a critical factor. You feel differently and that's OK.

John,



I never stated how I felt about IS in regard to it being a critical factor. I simply responded to your post because it seemed contradictory in regard to you stating that IS was not worth paying for yet you bought 2 lenses with IS. Now that you have elaborated on why you bought those lenses, it makes more sense. I have trouble believing that there isn't something comparable without IS, but since I am not familiar with lenses that work with Canon I can't say for certain.



As far as you getting a hoot out of almost desperate devotion by IS people, I have yet to witness anything of that magnitude. I also never stated that IS is the end-all and be-all of photography and I don't think people who like IS are making such outrageous claims. I haven't been here for a few months so maybe I just haven't seen those types of posters. I doubt that the more experienced photographers are providing that impression so I don't think it's fair to label all of us who use IS as IS people or as desperate devotees. There are those that feel thatspend big bucks on a Canon system arenot getting there money's worth but it wouldn't be fair to label them or you as a desperate devotee. Youobviously feel it is the right system for you.



By no means have you burst my bubble and I hate to burst yours but your opinions on IS and whatever features you want to refute or take a poke at are just that...opinions. They mean absolutely nothing to anyone who uses and likes IS. You have simply convinced yourself that it is not for you and therefore not worth paying for based on your needs. If I had a Canon, I would avoid IS also because it isn't worth paying extra for on each lens. Since your verdict on IS is based on your needs and your needs are limited by the type of shooting you do, your analysis of the value or IS or return on investment is considerably flawed, although it may be less flawed if we are talking about Canon or Nikon lens based IS, which translates into a more expensive investment if a consumer tries to buy mostly IS lenses.



I am not one of the raving lunatics who are desperately devoted to IS, but I will say this... IS works.... It is a fact that works and that is not an opinion. Whether it is worth paying for is of course debatable, but if we are talking about in-body IS, the cost difference in most cases is virtually insignificant so in my opinion it is not realistically an issue. I would however never buy one camera over another simply because it had IS... in fact I bought a camera without IS several months ago because it's high ISO results were much better than comparable models with IS.



We all make choices and then we have to live with them, but we don't all feel the need to have to justify them.

Gozinta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2007, 5:56 AM   #20
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

I personally find IS to be mildly useful on my standard zoom, but to be honest only really for snapshots.

If I want to make sure I'm getting a sharp shot then I adjust my shutter speed or use a tripod.

And when I'm shooting in low light I use primes or flash anyway.

In fact on my 17-85 IS I had the IS switched off by accident and didn't notice for a month. I didn't get noticably less usable shots.

On the longer lenses I do find it nice, but once again - not everyone finds it helpful some people can do better without it for sports and action work.

As to the whole superiority of IS in body v the lens, well I personally change my bodies more frequently than my lenses and so I get technically better IS and my IS lenses work with all my bodies.:blah: And I prefer the in-lens IS because I can see through the viewfinder how much shake reduction I'm getting.

YMMV.

Canon's take on it:

"Some of Canon's competitors have chosen to use in-body image stabilization. The technique involves moving the image sensor in a controlled fashion, based on signals from movement detecting sensors in the camera body. The obvious advantage of this system is that users have some sort of stabilization available with almost any lens they connect to the body. Short focal length lenses require smaller sensor deflections; 24 or 28 mm lenses might need only 1 mm or so. Longer lenses necessitate much greater movement; 300 mm lenses would have to move the sensor about 5.5 mm (nearly 1/4") to achieve the correction Canon gets with its IS system at the same focal length. This degree of sensor movement is beyond the range of current technology. Short and 'normal' focal length lenses need stabilization much less often than long lenses, so the lenses that need the most help get the least."


Anti-dust and Image Stabilisation are nice features but I could easily live without them (well in fact I am living without anti-dust and it's hardly an issue - it doesn't take more than 5-10 minutes once every 3 months, which is not significant when compared to the time I spend on processing and printing even a single photo.)
peripatetic 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 2:35 PM.