Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (
-   What Camera Should I Buy? (
-   -   Shake Reduction and Dust Reduction? (

jpmann66 Mar 28, 2007 10:14 AM

Are shake reduction and dust reduction technologies gimmicks, or something I really should look for in a new entry level DSLR?

mtclimber Mar 28, 2007 10:23 AM

If you are speaking about DSLR, cameras both features are desireable. Personally speaking, I would rate IS as a much higher priority feature. While I have had to clean the imager shield on my Nikon D-50 and my KM 5D, I have never had to clean the imager shield on my Olympus E-300. So there is some field use proof that "in camera" cleaning does indeed work.

However, you must keep in my that cleaning the imager shield on a DSLR camera can be easily done at home yourself, and that is the reason, at least in my opinion, that "in camera" cleaning has less priority than Image Stabilization.


Bailey59 Mar 28, 2007 11:30 AM

jpmann66 wrote:

Are shake reduction and dust reduction technologies gimmicks, or something I really should look for in a new entry level DSLR?
From another perspective - why wouldn't you want them? They're both positives, additions that make a device better.

jpmann66 Mar 28, 2007 11:45 AM

Thanks for the replies....I appreciate the help......It's not that I don't wantIS and Dust removal...Of course they sound nice...I just kinda liked the Nikons D40and Canon 350 that did not have these features built in (not having the $ for IS lenses)....and wondering if I should eliminate them from consideration for lack of these features.....or, maybe these don't matter so much......just as confused as lots of the folks asking questinos here. -- john

mtclimber Mar 28, 2007 12:06 PM


You can also have IS on your Nikon D-40 as well by using a lens such as the Nikkor 18-200mmVR lens with the camera. That is the combination that I am using with both my D-40 and D-50 cameras and find it to be an excellent combination.


gryphonslair99 Mar 28, 2007 1:57 PM

Bailey59 wrote:

jpmann66 wrote:

Are shake reduction and dust reduction technologies gimmicks, or something I really should look for in a new entry level DSLR?
From another perspective - why wouldn't you want them? They're both positives, additions that make a device better.
IMHO a better prespective is why and/or do I need them. The biggest problem I have seen with the 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. Most people I have seen that are serious enough to spend money on long glass with IS are also serious about photography and most likely already have an understanding of and practice good technique.

If IS is something that you find is a necessity, it then becomes time to assess the differnt methods of IS and the cost in the long run. Which one is the best for my needs.

The only thing that makes a positive on a camera or anything else is if you have a true need for it. Otherwise it is just a little extra profit for the sales person that got you to buy it. If it costs enough and has little enough value then it ends up in the Neiman Marcus Christmas catalog.

fldspringer Mar 28, 2007 2:18 PM

Neither is a gimmick, as long as they're functional.

The question is how much you will NEED the features. If you purchase the 10x zoom and never change lenses, you just don't need a dust buster. If you shoot with high shutter speeds or use tripods alot, you may not benefit from IS.

For what its worth, I also have an Olympus. I never worry about changing lenses and sensor dust has never been a problem. I don't personally know of anyone with the e-system cameras that have had to clean the sensor yet. Really quite amazing when you stop to think about it.

I also have taken some crappy photos because I wasn't as stable holding the camera as I'd hoped, so that feature is something I sometimes would find useful.

TCav Mar 28, 2007 2:31 PM

jpmann66 wrote:

Are shake reduction and dust reduction technologies gimmicks, or something I really should look for in a new entry level DSLR?
If you will never remove the kit lens, you probably don't need to worry about dust reduction, because dust won't ever get into your camera. If you're handy with small tools and delicate instruments, you probably don't need to worry about dust reduction, becasue you can clean it yourself.

Shake Reduction is another matter. Whatever it's called, it lets you use a slower shutter speed than you might otherwise. You can use that advantage any way you want. You can get a shot that you couldn't otherwise because of insufficient light. You can get some motion blur for action shots or panning. You can use a smaller aperature to get a deeper depth of field. Or any number of other ways.

Or you can turn it off.

But if you don't have it, you can't turn it on.

And if it's in the dSLR body, you only have to pay for it once.

JohnG Mar 28, 2007 5:53 PM

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.

shake reduction usefulness depends on what and how you shoot. I agree with another poster - IS in short focal lengths helps promote laziness and poor technique. The longer the focal length the more beneficial the feature becomes. Just how beneficial depends entirely on what and how you shoot. 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.

Which leads to the point of in-camera IS. That is a very usable feature. But only if the camera and camera system in question provides you with your other needs. It is only one feature of many - just like focus speed, frame rate, ISO capability, buffer handling, processing algorithms, ergonomics, etc are all camera features and lens availability and performance and flash availability / performance are attributes of a camera system that should factor in.

Based on your own experiences and shooting style a given set of features may be more important. Just because I may desire high ISO performance and thus may rate that as a high priority and IS as a low priority - your photographic style may swap the two. There is no one perfect camera or camera system - each has their pros and cons.

IMO anti-dust is a non-needed feature (and I change lenses quite a bit). Whether IS is useful depends entirely on what you shoot. You might ask the question: if all else was equal, wouldn't you want is? the answer is - Yes But everything else is NOT equalin this or any other comparison.

mtngal Mar 28, 2007 11:08 PM

My first dSLR was the Pentax DS and I now have a K100 and K10 (sold the DS when I upgraded to the K10) so I've had cameras with and without in-camera shake reduction and dust removal system.

In my personal experience the dust removal system on the K10 is nice to have, but not a big deal. I can limit the amount of dust by how I change my lens (and even with two bodies, I still find myself changing lenses often). I have yet to clean my sensor, the dust I seem to pick up is easily dealt with by a hand air-blower (I know that there'll come a time when I'll have to do it. I would not rule out any camera from contention just because it doesn't have a dust removal system (the K100 doesn't have it).

Shake reduction depends on the person. I disagree that it will promote laziness and poor habits (I suppose it could with some people). Whether it is useful or not depends on the individual and their capabilities. 20 years ago I probably wouldn't have cared one way or the other, but I'm not as steady as I was back then. I can't handhold a camera at the same shutter speeds I used to be able to manage (found that out when I first got the K100 and was taking some comparison shots. I got far more "keepers" at 200mm with the K100, and now routinely use a 300mm lens - something I wouldn't have tried with the DS). It helps but isn't infalllible - I can't manage a 1 sec. shot no matter what.

While I find SR most useful for longer lenses (as was mentioned - it allowed me to shoot with a 300mm lens), I've also found it useful when taking pictures in low light. I'm just not willing to drag a tripod along when taking pictures of the casino lights along Las Vegas Blvd.

Image stabilization is a make-or-break issue for me, but only you can say whether it is important to you. Even if it is an important issue for you, if you find the ergonomics of the cameras that have it uncomfortable, then skip them. The best SR camera in the world won't take good pictures if you leave it in the closet because you hate carrying/using it. On the other hand, I've been enjoying my camera so much more because I have far fewer pictures that are spoiled by slightcamera shake.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2