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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 5, 2008, 8:33 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Peripathetic-

You are of course 100% correct. "Digital Stabilization" is the very same gimmick that was used years ago on inexpensive camcorders. The Olympus E-410 is my personal challenge camera. It has no more stabilization than my Canon 20D, but it is capable of good photos if care is used when taking photos. The size is handy for me. I can get by with a rather small kit, which I prefer, at times.

Note to TCav-

I did not measn to jostle the waters and I apologize, if I came on a bit forcefully.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 5, 2008, 8:33 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

peripatetic,

1. I think the effect of image stabilization would be difficult to reproduce, especially on a different camera, so I think expecting Sarah to perform such a test is unreasonable.

2. I have had multiple occasions to visit the Olympus website recently, to gather info to resond to the inquires of others in these forums, and the E-410 page doesn't mention image stabilization, and none of the downloadable documents mention it. In fact, the instruction manual for the E-410 states:


[line]

Taking pictures without blurring
There are several factors that can cause the picture to blur.


[align=left]The subject is too dark
• Change the shutter speed to match the brightness of the subject. If the shutter speed is set low to shoot a dark subject, blurring is likely to occur if the subject moves. In addition, when the flash is turned off in g (Scene mode), the shutter speed becomes slower.
Mount the camera on a tripod. Using the remote control (optional) to close the shutter is also effective for reducing blurring.
There are also ways to shoot with [q] (DIS MODE) under g (Scene mode). As the ISO sensitivity increases automatically, you can hand hold the camera and take pictures in low light situations with the flash off.[/align]
[align=left]The camera or your hand moves when pressing the shutter button.
• Press the shutter button gently or hold the camera securely with both hands.
[line]


[/align]This doesn't sound like an endorsementof image stabilization to me. Perhaps the "ways to shoot with [q] (DIS MODE) under g (Scene mode)" is the limit of the digital image stabilization.

Every other product with IShas a clearly identified method of turning it off, yet I couldn't find such amethod for the E-410. All that I could find is the reference to "[q] (DIS MODE) under g (Scene mode)" which seems to be a rather obscure and complicated way to turn it on!

The only reference I could findto image stabilization on the E-410 webpages is on the FAQ page. In resonse to "What differentiates the EVOLT E-410 from the EVOLT E-510?" the following paragraph appears:


[line]

The smaller, lighter EVOLT E-410 features a Digital Image Stabilization shooting mode that boosts the light sensitivity of the imaging sensor and increases the shutter speed in order to reduce blur, particularly in low-light situations. This proven technology not only minimizes distortion due to camera shake, but it also is capable of freezing a moving subject.


[line]

I think that, possibly in response to criticism, Olympus has toned down the advertising drivel about image stabilization in the E-410.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 5, 2008, 1:13 PM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 9
Default

TCav wrote:
Quote:
The E-410 has what is caller 'Digital Image Stabilization' which is a mix of increasing the shutter speed in order to capture the image faster, while increasing the ISO to correct the exposure. It's the type of 'image stabilization' that is commonly used in some inexpensive P&S digicams and camcorders.
wouldn't increasing shutter speed and ISO affect picture quality, for get and blur from shaking.

I'm looking for stabilization using telephoto and no tripod, not surre if this would give it to me. I definately like the 410 size.



Pentax is the best deal right now.

My local camera shop says lens stabilization is better than in camera body stabilization i e Pentax, Sony, but you pay for it with expensive lenses.



any comments
derfy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 5, 2008, 1:45 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

derfy wrote:
Quote:
TCav wrote:
Quote:
The E-410 has what is caller 'Digital Image Stabilization' which is a mix of increasing the shutter speed in order to capture the image faster, while increasing the ISO to correct the exposure. It's the type of 'image stabilization' that is commonly used in some inexpensive P&S digicams and camcorders.
wouldn't increasing shutter speed and ISO affect picture quality, for get and blur from shaking.
Increasing the ISO too far can increase noise, so, yes, usually.

derfy wrote:
Quote:
I'm looking for stabilization using telephoto and no tripod, not surre if this would give it to me. I definately like the 410 size.
The E-410 is smaller and lighter than any other dSLR, but I don't think its digital image stabilization is up to the tasks you have in mind.

derfy wrote:
Quote:
My local camera shop says lens stabilization is better than in camera body stabilization i e Pentax, Sony, but you pay for it with expensive lenses.
Keep in mind that telephoto lenses are heavy, andwill seem to get heavier the longer you use them. IS in lensesmakes them that much heavier. If you want a work-out, free weights are a lot cheaper. [suB]:-)[/suB]

And according to Popular Photography, Optical IS and Sensor Shift IS are about equally effective. This report shows that the stand-out performance for IS is the Nikon 18-200 VR, but it's just not a very good lens ina lot of other respects.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2008, 3:51 AM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3
Default

well the question was.....is this camera right for my needs.
okay lets get all these features...live view,IS and dust reduction out of the discussion...

in that case purely on performance basis....what options do i have in the same price category(not more than $700)

with the prime factor being size of the camera,and easy to operate.I want camera for general use that has features and quality of an SLR.
capri435 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2008, 3:51 AM   #16
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3
Default

well the question was.....is this camera right for my needs.
okay lets get all these features...live view,IS and dust reduction out of the discussion...

in that case purely on performance basis....what options do i have in the same price category(not more than $700)

with the prime factor being size of the camera,and easy to operate.I want camera for general use that has features and quality of an SLR.
capri435 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2008, 4:58 AM   #17
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Quote:
My local camera shop says lens stabilization is better than in camera body stabilization i e Pentax, Sony, but you pay for it with expensive lenses.
That's correct.

If you accept the premise that IS is more important on longer lenses then the conclusion that it is better in the lens is inescapable.

Body stabilization is limited in its effectiveness by the distance that the sensor is able to move. The longer the lens the farther the movement required to cover shake of a single degree of view.

For a thread which goes into detail by some people who really know what they are talking about see:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/...howtopic=21845

So I guess it depends really - IS has a continuum of usefulness depending on the sort of things you like to shoot and your shooting style.


That Pop-photo review is about as useful as their reviews usually are IMO. Which is to say fine as far as they go, but they just don't go very far.

Situation 1:
If you like to do low-light handheld work at shorter focal lengths (avoiding a tripod) then in-body IS seems ideal and those systems have an advantage over their competition, because they are equally effective and cost less.

This is the sort of thing I like to do. For my main zoom lens on my Canon 5D I have the 24-105 f4 IS lens, I chose this in preference to the 24-70 f2.8 zoom (non-IS) because I don't generally like to use those lenses at their widest aperture, I tend to want reasonable depth of field and the 4-stop IS more than compensates for the extra f-stop.

It would be great for me if there was an FX format body with IS. Then I could get stabilization on all my fast prime lenses too. The coming Sony A900 is likely to have this feature so I am looking out for it with some interest.

Situation 2:
Wildlife photography with a 600mm lens. AF performance is critical, viewfinder performance is critical too for composition.

No contest. In body IS here is almost useless by comparison to lens-based IS. See the LL thread above for more detail.

Do note however that if you are spending between $7,000 and $10,000 on a lens I don't see that the cost of the IS is the major determining factor.

Situation 3:
A consumer level 70-300 zoom lens on a DX crop body. Ah, now this is where it gets harder to say.

Assume 1 degree of shake from unsteady hands.

Angle of view on DX format at 70mm = 23 degrees.

1/23 * 70mm = sensor needs to move 3mm. No problem I think.

Angle of view on DX format at 300mm = 5.5 degrees.

1/5.5 * 300mm = 54mm. There is no way that the sensor is being moved through 5.4cm - there simply isn't room in the body and the amount of force involved in moving the sensor that far becomes rather problematic I would think.


Compare the situation with something like the Olympus with its 2x crop factor and the situation is even worse.

So you might be tempted to think that the Olympus with the Bigma 50-500 is a nice solution because it gives you IS and an equivalent focal length of 1000mm but in fact the body IS is almost useless at the long end of the zoom.

The angle of view on a 2x crop is only about 2.4 degrees at 500mm. So to correct for a single degree of shake you would need to be moving the sensor through 208mm or about 8 inches. That is some considerable distance outside the camera body itself. Of course you become limited far sooner than that by the fact that you can't move the sensor outside the image circle cast by the lens + mount. Once you move the sensor outside the image circle image quality tends to go down rather sharply. :-)
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2008, 7:10 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Perpathetic-

Thanks for a well thought out and very informative post. Your post really puts IS in perspective.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2008, 9:15 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

peripatetic,

If we presume that camera shake manifests itself as angular displacement and not linear displacement (not a safe presumption), then sensor shift image stabilization would only need to shift the image sensorby so many degrees (by 1 degree, if we use your example.), not by so many millimeters or centimeters, and the focal length of the lens attached to the camera wouldn't have anything to do with the amount of shift required. It would only have to move the image sensor by the amount of rotation induced by the shake.

Let's take your example, for instance, of a 300mm lens with a 5.5° angle of view. Let's mount that lens on a dSLRwith an APS-C sized image sensor (23.5mm x 15.7mm.) If we presume that the angular displacement is 1° (which is quite a lot, by the way), compensating for that would require a shift of the image sensor by 1/5.5 of the size of the sensor, or less than 3mm! That's a far cry from the 54mm in your example!

And this ignores camera shake in the form of linear displacement, a far more likely circumstance, I beleive, which might require a sensor shift of what amounts to only a few pixels.

So I suggest that the contributors at Luminous Landscape don't really know what they're talking about. I think it's possible that those contributors wanted to confirm their preconceived notion by performing some inappropriate math.


TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2008, 9:44 AM   #20
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
... 1/5.5 * 300mm = 54mm. There is no way that the sensor is being moved through 5.4cm - there simply isn't room in the body and the amount of force involved in moving the sensor that far becomes rather problematic I would think.


Compare the situation with something like the Olympus with its 2x crop factor and the situation is even worse.

So you might be tempted to think that the Olympus with the Bigma 50-500 is a nice solution because it gives you IS and an equivalent focal length of 1000mm but in fact the body IS is almost useless at the long end of the zoom.

The angle of view on a 2x crop is only about 2.4 degrees at 500mm. So to correct for a single degree of shake you would need to be moving the sensor through 208mm or about 8 inches. That is some considerable distance outside the camera body itself. Of course you become limited far sooner than that by the fact that you can't move the sensor outside the image circle cast by the lens + mount. Once you move the sensor outside the image circle image quality tends to go down rather sharply. :-)
Interesting theory...
However:

1. No photographer in their right mind will handhold a 600mm or longer because of it weight, and once mounted on a tripod I don't believe the benefit of IS or VR anymore since I've seen plenty of excellent pictures from Liquidstone with stacked TC's 300-800 Sigmonster!

2. It is a significant advantage to be able to take a 500-1000 zoom with you on a hike where it matter the most and not be affixed to one position like a heavy tripod set-up! I've also posted several links to images of stabilized Oly/300mm f/2.8 which is equivalent to Nikon/Canon 600mm f/2.8, which theses manufacturers don't even make, let alone be able to handhold one...

3. Handheld 1/20s @ 500mm on an in-body IS K10D (and more):
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...p;changemode=1
NHL 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 6:24 PM.