image stabilization

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by cqdx, Jan 4, 2005.

  1. cqdx

    cqdx Guest

    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
     
    cqdx, Jan 4, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. cqdx

    al-Farrob Guest

    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
     
    al-Farrob, Jan 4, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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
     
    Joseph Meehan, Jan 4, 2005
    #3
  4. cqdx

    Jim Townsend Guest

    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.
     
    Jim Townsend, Jan 4, 2005
    #4
  5. cqdx

    Paul Wylie Guest

    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?


    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. **
     
    Paul Wylie, Jan 4, 2005
    #5
  6. > 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/~charlesschuler/wsb/media/291308/site1046.jpg
     
    Charles Schuler, Jan 4, 2005
    #6
  7. cqdx

    Paul Wylie Guest

    Charles Schuler <> wrote:
    > This was taken at full zoom with that lens:
    > http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschuler/wsb/media/291308/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. **
     
    Paul Wylie, Jan 4, 2005
    #7
  8. "Paul Wylie" <> wrote in message
    news:crf6qf$co2$...
    > Charles Schuler <> wrote:
    >> This was taken at full zoom with that lens:
    >> http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschuler/wsb/media/291308/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
     
    Robert R Kircher, Jr., Jan 4, 2005
    #8
  9. cqdx

    tomcas Guest

    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
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    tomcas, Jan 4, 2005
    #9
  10. cqdx

    C J Campbell Guest

    "cqdx" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
     
    C J Campbell, Jan 4, 2005
    #10
  11. "Paul Wylie" <> wrote in message
    news:crf6qf$co2$...
    > Charles Schuler <> wrote:
    >> This was taken at full zoom with that lens:
    >> http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschuler/wsb/media/291308/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.


    It's a crop. Also, I compressed it some more to reduce the file size.

    > [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.


    The image was not shot in RAW. I have not found RAW to be worth the extra
    effort for shots of this type. RAW IS worth the extra effort for scenes
    with a large dynamic range.

    As to the lens, yes it is a bit soft at full zoom but very acceptable based
    on its cost. I find many of the comments about this lens to be far too
    harsh. I have a lowly 300D camera, and if I had a 1Ds MKII, I'd definitely
    get a better lens. In other words, consider a chain which always breaks at
    the weakest link (no sense in adding one super-strong link).
     
    Charles Schuler, Jan 4, 2005
    #11
  12. cqdx

    leo Guest

    Charles Schuler wrote:
    > "Paul Wylie" <> wrote in message
    > news:crf6qf$co2$...
    >
    >>Charles Schuler <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>This was taken at full zoom with that lens:
    >>>http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschuler/wsb/media/291308/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.

    >
    >
    > It's a crop. Also, I compressed it some more to reduce the file size.
    >
    >
    >>[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.

    >
    >
    > The image was not shot in RAW. I have not found RAW to be worth the extra
    > effort for shots of this type. RAW IS worth the extra effort for scenes
    > with a large dynamic range.
    >
    > As to the lens, yes it is a bit soft at full zoom but very acceptable based
    > on its cost. I find many of the comments about this lens to be far too
    > harsh. I have a lowly 300D camera, and if I had a 1Ds MKII, I'd definitely
    > get a better lens. In other words, consider a chain which always breaks at
    > the weakest link (no sense in adding one super-strong link).



    The 75-300IS is alright. We, SLRers, are spoiled by Canon's L lenses'
    sharpness and color. The picture quality of 75-300 at 300 (480 in 35mm
    term)still beats many compact cameras.
     
    leo, Jan 4, 2005
    #12

  13. > The 75-300IS is alright. We, SLRers, are spoiled by Canon's L lenses'
    > sharpness and color. The picture quality of 75-300 at 300 (480 in 35mm
    > term)still beats many compact cameras.


    I'll go so far as to say that it easily beats most of the compact cameras
    and at least equals the best of them. OK, now I have opened the flood
    gates. Flame away!

    Been to several camera stores and experimented with the extreme zoom
    compacts and found that auto focus is not good. Auto focus is not all that
    great on the 75-300 IS at full zoom but noticeably better than the compacts!
    Can't comment on super zoom compact results (actual photos), however.
     
    Charles Schuler, Jan 5, 2005
    #13
  14. cqdx

    cqdx Guest

    Thanks guys for all of your help. Greatly appreciated.
     
    cqdx, Jan 5, 2005
    #14
  15. cqdx

    Paul Wylie Guest

    Robert R Kircher, Jr. <> wrote:
    > 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.


    I'm using Photoshop Elements 2.0 (for now--I'm about to upgrade to 3.0).
    I don't have that problem with shots I've taken with any other lens.
    Shots taken with the kit lens are plenty sharp, even when viewed at 200%.
    Shots taken with the 50 mm f1.8 USM are even sharper (naturally).

    > 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.


    I shot quite a few photos in RAW when I had the A2, and quickly decided it
    wasn't worth the hassle. PSE 3.0 has native RAW support, so I might use
    RAW more when I upgrade to PSE 3.0, but for now, I'm not mucking with it
    much.

    --Paul
    ** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **
     
    Paul Wylie, Jan 5, 2005
    #15
  16. cqdx

    Paul Wylie Guest

    Charles Schuler <> wrote:
    > It's a crop. Also, I compressed it some more to reduce the file size.


    So you haven't resized it at all? Were you at full zoom when you shot
    that image? If so, then maybe my 75-300 is defective, because I would
    definitely be able to see artifacts at full zoom with an image displayed
    at 100% resolution.

    [...]
    > As to the lens, yes it is a bit soft at full zoom but very acceptable
    > based on its cost. I find many of the comments about this lens to be
    > far too harsh. I have a lowly 300D camera, and if I had a 1Ds MKII,
    > I'd definitely get a better lens. In other words, consider a chain
    > which always breaks at the weakest link (no sense in adding one
    > super-strong link).


    I'm not a good enough photographer yet to take advantage of a better
    camera body, but I'd imagine that just about any camera could benefit from
    sharper glass with a wider aperture. That said, it seems ludicrous to
    think about putting a $1700 (or dramatically more expensive) lens on the
    lowest-end DSLR on the market.

    --Paul
    ** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **
     
    Paul Wylie, Jan 5, 2005
    #16
  17. cqdx

    Colin D Guest

    Paul Wylie wrote:
    >
    > Charles Schuler <> wrote:
    > > It's a crop. Also, I compressed it some more to reduce the file size.

    >
    > So you haven't resized it at all? Were you at full zoom when you shot
    > that image? If so, then maybe my 75-300 is defective, because I would
    > definitely be able to see artifacts at full zoom with an image displayed
    > at 100% resolution.


    'Artifacts' are produced by post-image processing in digital images,
    including 'display artifacts' with some image viewers which aren't
    actually in the image itself.

    AKAIK, lenses do not produce artifacts. They can introduce distortion,
    reflections, or be unsharp, but they don't manufacture artifacts.

    RAW images are the only way to eliminate processing artifacts. Also,
    many zooms get an unjust reputation for being soft at the long end, when
    most of the time it's due to slight mis-focusing, specially with AF.

    Colin
     
    Colin D, Jan 6, 2005
    #17
  18. Dalibor Bauernfrajnd, Jan 6, 2005
    #18
  19. cqdx

    Lipsius Guest

    cqdx schreef in news::

    > 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
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >


    I have a Canon S1 IS (Image Stabilizer) and was able to shoot wonderful
    'close-ups' of my first encounter with a wild bear last summer. No tripod,
    camera in hand, ready to run.
    Believe me: it's worth the money.
     
    Lipsius, Jan 11, 2005
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. James E Kropp

    Re: Appropriate Use of Image Stabilization

    James E Kropp, Jul 31, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    484
    John Navas
    Aug 2, 2003
  2. JJVandJMB

    Which cameras have image stabilization??

    JJVandJMB, Oct 20, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    1,036
    Jupiter
    Oct 22, 2003
  3. kjk

    Long Zooms with Image Stabilization

    kjk, Dec 27, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    361
    Hans-Georg Michna
    Dec 28, 2003
  4. Alan Wonsowski

    Image Stabilization - What Lens Has This for D70

    Alan Wonsowski, May 24, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    2,333
  5. Al Clark

    Lens stabilization vs Camera stabilization

    Al Clark, Nov 30, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    119
    Views:
    1,929
    Dan Sullivan
    Dec 9, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page