image stabilization
 

Is image stabilization a gimmick on ultra-compact digitals with only a 3x
zoom or is it actually useful? Drawbacks?

Re: image stabilization
 

"jojoandsha" <u16733@uwe> wrote in message news:58efc856cc096@uwe...
> Is image stabilization a gimmick on ultra-compact digitals with only a 3x
> zoom or is it actually useful? Drawbacks?

I'd not call it a gimmick but would have to know how well it actually works.
There are situations where IS is useful (low-light), regardless of zoom.

My FZ-5 IS works well, but that is a 12x zoom camera. Does it occasionally
become useful at low-zoom; sure!

Re: image stabilization
 

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 20:50:13 GMT, "jojoandsha" <u16733@uwe> wrote:

>Is image stabilization a gimmick on ultra-compact digitals with only a 3x
>zoom or is it actually useful? Drawbacks?

I wouldn't buy a camera without it. Even with no zoom it helps in low
light.

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

Re: image stabilization
 

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 20:50:13 GMT, jojoandsha <u16733@uwe> wrote:
> Is image stabilization a gimmick on ultra-compact digitals with only a 3x
> zoom or is it actually useful? Drawbacks?

It's useful at moderate focal lengths when light levels drop. I was
amusing myself last night by taking pictures of my apartment in fairly
low light, needing shutters of 1/4 s or thereabouts. Even at the wide
end of the zoom, I needed the stabilizer to have any hope of avoiding
blur.I imagine this would be even more true on ultracompacts, since they
tend to have lenses that are fairly dim at the tele end.

My recollection of the reviews of stabilized ultracompacts is that the
stabilizers aren't quite as effective as they are in superzooms, since
the ultracompacts are lighter and tend to shake more. It still helps to
some extent, though.

-dms

Re: image stabilization
 

I saw a Sony P&S with "steady shot" which works on my sony camcorder so
that may be true stabilisation. Ive heard some makes just lower
automaticly , change a setting, which is not stabilising anything.
Panasonic I believe have models that do stabilise. It will be a common
addition eventualy, now on a few better models.

Re: image stabilization
 

ransley@webtv.net (m Ransley) writes:

> I saw a Sony P&S with "steady shot" which works on my sony camcorder so
> that may be true stabilisation.

Image stabilization on camcorders is something entirely different. It
works by detecting motion between frames, and shifting a crop
rectangle slightly smaller than the full frame.

> Ive heard some makes just lower automaticly , change a setting,
> which is not stabilising anything.

If there's a marketing lie they can get away with, they'll use it.
That sounds like it could be one of them.

--
Måns Rullgård
mru@inprovide.com

Re: image stabilization
 

=?iso-8859-1?q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?= <mru@inprovide.com> writes:

>> I saw a Sony P&S with "steady shot" which works on my sony camcorder so
>> that may be true stabilisation.

>Image stabilization on camcorders is something entirely different. It
>works by detecting motion between frames, and shifting a crop
>rectangle slightly smaller than the full frame.

That's "digital image stabilization", it's common on cheaper camcorders,
and you're right that it isn't useful for still images.

But better camcorders often have optical image stabilization, which
keeps the image more or less stationary on the sensor. This is better
than DIS because individual frames are sharper, and it is also useful on
a still camera.

Dave

Re: image stabilization
 

jojoandsha wrote:
> Is image stabilization a gimmick on ultra-compact digitals with only a 3x
> zoom or is it actually useful? Drawbacks?

Probably a gimmick, at that level of zoom. Most likely the 'electronic'
(software) kind, rather than a mechanical IS.
Note that doing the job via software is not as good as mechanical, and
will reduce both effective resolution, and image quality.

Re: image stabilization
 

Ron Hunter wrote:
> jojoandsha wrote:
>> Is image stabilization a gimmick on ultra-compact digitals with only
>> a 3x zoom or is it actually useful? Drawbacks?
>
> Probably a gimmick, at that level of zoom. Most likely the
> 'electronic' (software) kind, rather than a mechanical IS.
> Note that doing the job via software is not as good as mechanical, and
> will reduce both effective resolution, and image quality.

I agree that a mechanical system is to be preferred, and it would be up to
the purchaser to check. I don't agree the image stabilisation has no
place with small zoom cameras - it can both extend the light-level at
which a camera can be hand held, and it can help compensate for the small
aperture lenses these very compact cameras sometimes have. Don't forget
that ISO 100 may be the highest usable speed because of noise.

Even on my Nikon 8400 (24mm wide-angle) I still wish it had IS for the dim
lighting we get in our nothern winters!

David