Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Which cameras have real Image Stabilization? (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t416382-which-cameras-have-real-image-stabilization.html)

Don Wiss 06-23-2005 11:59 PM

Which cameras have real Image Stabilization?
 
A friend is in the market for a new digital camera. He wants to spend under
$900. We have agreed that real image stabilization is a must have feature.
Has anyone a list of which camera models have IS so one can then compare
those to see which suit his needs?

Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).

Dizzledorf 06-24-2005 05:20 AM

Re: Which cameras have real Image Stabilization?
 
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 19:59:52 -0400, Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com>
wrote:

>A friend is in the market for a new digital camera. He wants to spend under
>$900. We have agreed that real image stabilization is a must have feature.
>Has anyone a list of which camera models have IS so one can then compare
>those to see which suit his needs?
>
>Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).


Googling
http://www.google.com/search?client=...+stabilization

got me:
http://www.photoxels.com/cameras_ultra_zoom.html

This is a list of ultra (8x+) zooms, image stabilization / "vibration
reduction" only as noted -- missing are the older S1 IS and brand new
Sony H-1.

this was on page 1 as well:
http://www.digicamhelp.com/digital-c...stabilization/


DIZZLE

David J Taylor 06-24-2005 06:56 AM

Re: Which cameras have real Image Stabilization?
 
Dizzledorf wrote:
[]
> http://www.photoxels.com/cameras_ultra_zoom.html
>
> This is a list of ultra (8x+) zooms, image stabilization / "vibration
> reduction" only as noted -- missing are the older S1 IS and brand new
> Sony H-1.
>
> this was on page 1 as well:
> http://www.digicamhelp.com/digital-c...stabilization/


Both of which miss the newer Panasonic FZ5.



PLONK! 06-24-2005 07:58 AM

Re: Which cameras have real Image Stabilization?
 
"Don Wiss" <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote in message
news:53jmb1du9svdff6bg5ftvq90fe0h8q4umr@4ax.com...
>A friend is in the market for a new digital camera. He wants to spend under
> $900. We have agreed that real image stabilization is a must have feature.
> Has anyone a list of which camera models have IS so one can then compare
> those to see which suit his needs?
>

Check out this page:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare.asp



Don Wiss 06-24-2005 09:25 AM

Re: Which cameras have real Image Stabilization?
 
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 09:58:52 +0200, "PLONK!" <h@isnep.com> wrote:

>Don Wiss wrote:
>>A friend is in the market for a new digital camera. He wants to spend under
>> $900. We have agreed that real image stabilization is a must have feature.
>> Has anyone a list of which camera models have IS so one can then compare
>> those to see which suit his needs?
>>

>Check out this page:
>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare.asp


Ah, wonderful. That is my favorite site for checking out features, but I
was unaware of that page.

I see that for some of them for IS they have "Yes, CCD." I recall a recent
article in either the NY Times or WSJ (?) where they compared some IS
cameras and some had IS that wasn't as good as others. That is why I used
the words real IS in my request.

Thanks, Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).

John Bean 06-24-2005 10:02 AM

Re: Which cameras have real Image Stabilization?
 
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 05:25:46 -0400, Don Wiss
<donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 09:58:52 +0200, "PLONK!" <h@isnep.com> wrote:
>
>>Don Wiss wrote:
>>>A friend is in the market for a new digital camera. He wants to spend under
>>> $900. We have agreed that real image stabilization is a must have feature.
>>> Has anyone a list of which camera models have IS so one can then compare
>>> those to see which suit his needs?
>>>

>>Check out this page:
>>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare.asp

>
>Ah, wonderful. That is my favorite site for checking out features, but I
>was unaware of that page.
>
>I see that for some of them for IS they have "Yes, CCD." I recall a recent
>article in either the NY Times or WSJ (?) where they compared some IS
>cameras and some had IS that wasn't as good as others. That is why I used
>the words real IS in my request.


Most IS systems use lens optics to achieve stabilisation,
but Konica Minolta move the sensor instead. Both work.

I've owned a KM A2 and a Panasonic FZ1. The A2 "anti shake"
is better at normal focal lengths and very slow shutter
speeds than the FZ, the FZ is better at longer focal lengths
but at not quite so low speeds. The difference is not great,
both work very well indeed.

--
Regards

John Bean

David J Taylor 06-24-2005 10:11 AM

Re: Which cameras have real Image Stabilization?
 
Don Wiss wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 09:58:52 +0200, "PLONK!" <h@isnep.com> wrote:

[]
>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare.asp

>
> Ah, wonderful. That is my favorite site for checking out features,
> but I was unaware of that page.
>
> I see that for some of them for IS they have "Yes, CCD." I recall a
> recent article in either the NY Times or WSJ (?) where they compared
> some IS cameras and some had IS that wasn't as good as others. That
> is why I used the words real IS in my request.


I guess there are at least three forms of IS:

1 - electronically shifting the CCD data after exposure. This is mainly
used in video cameras, although I know the Nikon 8400 can do this in video
mode.

2 - move the sensor: some Minolta cameras can do this, including their
interchangeable lens SLR, so you get IS added to all your lenses.

3 - move elements in the lens. The most common and has been applied both
to point-and-shoot, e.g. Nikon 8800, Panasonic FZ20, and SLR lenses from
both Nikon and Canon (anyone else?).

I would regard real IS as comprising methods 2 and 3, and I've seen
nothing to suggest that one is significantly better than the other.
Personally I have the Panasonic FZ5, my wife has the Panasonic FZ20, but
the Canon S2 IS might be another contender.

Cheers,
David



David J Taylor 06-24-2005 10:16 AM

Re: Which cameras have real Image Stabilization?
 
John Bean wrote:
[]
> I've owned a KM A2 and a Panasonic FZ1. The A2 "anti shake"
> is better at normal focal lengths and very slow shutter
> speeds than the FZ, the FZ is better at longer focal lengths
> but at not quite so low speeds. The difference is not great,
> both work very well indeed.


That's interesting. I tested an A2, and rejected it partially because the
"anti-shake" indication said it wouldn't work at low shutter speeds (it
changed colour as I recall). I'm delighted with the FZ5 I now have.

With the A2, moving the sensor, at longer focal lengths the sensor would
have a greater distance to move to correct a given pointing error. I
wonder if that's why it doesn't work as well?

David



John Bean 06-24-2005 10:44 AM

Re: Which cameras have real Image Stabilization?
 
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 10:16:33 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
wrote:

>John Bean wrote:
>[]
>> I've owned a KM A2 and a Panasonic FZ1. The A2 "anti shake"
>> is better at normal focal lengths and very slow shutter
>> speeds than the FZ, the FZ is better at longer focal lengths
>> but at not quite so low speeds. The difference is not great,
>> both work very well indeed.

>
>That's interesting. I tested an A2, and rejected it partially because the
>"anti-shake" indication said it wouldn't work at low shutter speeds (it
>changed colour as I recall). I'm delighted with the FZ5 I now have.


The light changes colour at a fixed shutter speed. It's a
gimmick, it has no effect whatsoever on the IS performance,
it means nothing more than "the shutter speed is low".

>With the A2, moving the sensor, at longer focal lengths the sensor would
>have a greater distance to move to correct a given pointing error. I
>wonder if that's why it doesn't work as well?


That's my guess too. But it was astonishingly good for
hand-holding in low light conditions at normal to wide focal
lengths.


--
Regards

John Bean

David J Taylor 06-24-2005 11:00 AM

Re: Which cameras have real Image Stabilization?
 
John Bean wrote:
[]
>> That's interesting. I tested an A2, and rejected it partially
>> because the "anti-shake" indication said it wouldn't work at low
>> shutter speeds (it changed colour as I recall). I'm delighted with
>> the FZ5 I now have.

>
> The light changes colour at a fixed shutter speed. It's a
> gimmick, it has no effect whatsoever on the IS performance,
> it means nothing more than "the shutter speed is low".


Thanks, John. It's a gimmick that cost Konica-Minolta a sale, together
with the tinny construction of the swivel LCD finder and its limited
travel, poor JPEG image quality, and other issues. I lost faith in the
company. It's a pity, because the EVF was first-class (sadly dropped on
newer models).

Cheers,
David




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:53 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.