Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > image stabilization

Reply
Thread Tools

image stabilization

 
 
cqdx
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-04-2005
I'm looking at buying a 10X optimal zoom camera. Some feel that image
stabilization is a necessary feature to have in a 10X zoom camera. Just how
important is this feature,and is it worth paying about $100 more for it?
Thanks, Mitch






 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
al-Farrob
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-04-2005
cqdx wrote:

I would say it is worth paying that difference.

> I'm looking at buying a 10X optimal zoom camera. Some feel that image
> stabilization is a necessary feature to have in a 10X zoom camera. Just
> how important is this feature,and is it worth paying about $100 more for
> it? Thanks, Mitch


--
al-Farrob
--
"16 photographs by al-Farrob"
http://www.al-farrob.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Joseph Meehan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-04-2005
cqdx wrote:
> I'm looking at buying a 10X optimal zoom camera. Some feel that image
> stabilization is a necessary feature to have in a 10X zoom camera.
> Just how important is this feature,and is it worth paying about $100
> more for it? Thanks, Mitch


For $100 if it were any good, I would go for it. Is it necessary, well
that all depends. We lived with out them for a long time and some really
fantastic photography was done without them. I guess it is not necessary to
take great photographs. On the other hand if your expectations of your
equipment are high or you want the advantages of IS, then it is necessary.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jim Townsend
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-04-2005
cqdx wrote:

> I'm looking at buying a 10X optimal zoom camera. Some feel that image
> stabilization is a necessary feature to have in a 10X zoom camera. Just how
> important is this feature,and is it worth paying about $100 more for it?
> Thanks, Mitch


If you don't plan on using a tripod at full zoom, then it's
definitely worth it... Especially when you aren't in
bright sunlight.




 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Wylie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-04-2005
cqdx <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I'm looking at buying a 10X optimal zoom camera. Some feel that image
> stabilization is a necessary feature to have in a 10X zoom camera. Just
> how important is this feature,and is it worth paying about $100 more for
> it?


I have the Oly C2100UZ, which is a 10x optical zoom with IS, and it's such
a great feature that I put IS at the top of my list for long-zoom cameras
going forward, even ahead of a full 10x zoom.

I thought I'd found the perfect camera in the KonicaMinolta Dimage A2 (7x
zoom), but I found that its IS is inferior to the Oly's, and the noise
generated by the small 8 MP sensor was unacceptable for my use.

I ended up getting the Canon 300D (digital rebel) with the kit lens and
just recently acquired the 75-300 f4-5.6 IS to go with it. I'm very happy
with the quality of photos I'm getting with the kit lens, but I have to
agree with others that the 75-300 IS is fuzzy at the extreme end of its
focal length, and the IS isn't sufficient to fully eliminate lens shake at
full zoom for totally unsupported handheld operation, either.

If I were in the market for an all-in-one 10x zoom again, I'd still put IS
at the top of the feature list. The other thing to remember is that not
all 10x zooms are equivalent. The Oly's range was equivalent to a range
of 38-383mm on a 35mm film camera, but the Dimage A2's range (7x) was
the equivalent of 28-200mm, so even if it had been capable of 10x, it
would only have gone to the equivalent of 280mm.

--Paul
** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **
 
Reply With Quote
 
Charles Schuler
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-04-2005
> but I have to
> agree with others that the 75-300 IS is fuzzy at the extreme end of its
> focal length, and the IS isn't sufficient to fully eliminate lens shake at
> full zoom for totally unsupported handheld operation, either.


This was taken at full zoom with that lens:
http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschu...8/site1046.jpg



 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Wylie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-04-2005
Charles Schuler <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> This was taken at full zoom with that lens:
> http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschu...8/site1046.jpg


Very nice. Is that a full-res crop, or a resize? When I view the images
I've shot at full-res, they're fuzzy[1], but if I resize them, they look
fine.

[1] By fuzzy, I mean that the image appears to have been upsized, or
zoomed to 200%. A closer inspection reveals that the image looks heavily
anti-aliased. That could be a function of the settings I used on the
camera itself (I was in full-auto mode with default sharpening, etc.). I
haven't tried shooting with that lens in RAW mode or using any of the
creative zone modes yet.

--Paul
** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert R Kircher, Jr.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-04-2005
"Paul Wylie" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:crf6qf$co2$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Charles Schuler <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> This was taken at full zoom with that lens:
>> http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschu...8/site1046.jpg

>
> Very nice. Is that a full-res crop, or a resize? When I view the images
> I've shot at full-res, they're fuzzy[1], but if I resize them, they look
> fine.
>
> [1] By fuzzy, I mean that the image appears to have been upsized, or
> zoomed to 200%. A closer inspection reveals that the image looks heavily
> anti-aliased. That could be a function of the settings I used on the
> camera itself (I was in full-auto mode with default sharpening, etc.). I
> haven't tried shooting with that lens in RAW mode or using any of the
> creative zone modes yet.
>



What are you using to view the images? I had the same problem and finally
traced it down to the picture viewer supplied with Microsoft Office 2003.
ALL my images looked just ever so slightly blurry but if I resized them a
bit they snap in quite nicely. Since I've stopped using that as my main
image viewer and now use the software supplied by Canon.

BTW: I've moved to RAW (didn't take long) and it's by far the way to go. I
use Capture One to adjust the RAW images prior to saving them as JPEGs.

--

Rob



 
Reply With Quote
 
tomcas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-04-2005
cqdx wrote:
> I'm looking at buying a 10X optimal zoom camera. Some feel that image
> stabilization is a necessary feature to have in a 10X zoom camera. Just how
> important is this feature,

Very important, unless you want to carry a tripod around with you.
and is it worth paying about $100 more for it?
No, it's worth even more.
> Thanks, Mitch
>
>
>
>
>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
C J Campbell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-04-2005

"cqdx" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I'm looking at buying a 10X optimal zoom camera. Some feel that image
> stabilization is a necessary feature to have in a 10X zoom camera.


Yes, I am one of those that feel that way. In fact, I think IS is necessary
with 8x zoom.

And that is optical zoom, not optimal.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lens stabilization vs Camera stabilization Al Clark Digital Photography 119 12-09-2006 01:30 PM
Image Stabilization - What Lens Has This for D70 Alan Wonsowski Digital Photography 14 05-30-2004 03:48 PM
Long Zooms with Image Stabilization kjk Digital Photography 4 12-28-2003 12:36 PM
Which cameras have image stabilization?? JJVandJMB Digital Photography 18 10-22-2003 03:04 PM
Re: Appropriate Use of Image Stabilization James E Kropp Digital Photography 8 08-02-2003 12:49 AM



Advertisments