spending extra for the stabiliser

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by JWH, Jun 24, 2006.

  1. JWH

    JWH Guest

    My uncle Ron is poised to buy a pocket digital camera. the Canons look as
    good as any ??

    but is it worth paying out the extra for the 'image stabiliser' for those
    low light long
    distance shots, or is the image stabiliser an expensive gimmick? thanks
    for any advice.
     
    JWH, Jun 24, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 15:04:54 GMT, JWH <> wrote:
    > My uncle Ron is poised to buy a pocket digital camera. the Canons look as
    > good as any ??
    >
    > but is it worth paying out the extra for the 'image stabiliser' for those
    > low light long
    > distance shots, or is the image stabiliser an expensive gimmick? thanks
    > for any advice.


    I would say yes, it's worth paying somewhat extra. But, it really
    depends on what sort of photos he's going to be taking. For short-range
    shots of groups of people or the like, it's not going to add much. The
    longer the zoom range that he wants, the more useful the stabilizer.

    Depending on brand, a stabilizer may not add too much to the price. If
    he's looking for relatively inexpensive cameras that have stabilizers,
    check out some of the less expensive Panasonic models like the LZ3.

    -dms
     
    Daniel Silevitch, Jun 24, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. JWH wrote:
    > My uncle Ron is poised to buy a pocket digital camera. the Canons
    > look as good as any ??
    >
    > but is it worth paying out the extra for the 'image stabiliser' for
    > those low light long
    > distance shots, or is the image stabiliser an expensive gimmick? thanks
    > for any advice.


    Stabilizing technology does work. It helps, but it can only do so much.

    I don't have any right now, but if I were buying a new lens, I would
    likely look for it.

    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia duit
     
    Joseph Meehan, Jun 24, 2006
    #3
  4. "Joseph Meehan" <> writes:

    > JWH wrote:
    > > My uncle Ron is poised to buy a pocket digital camera. the Canons
    > > look as good as any ??
    > >
    > > but is it worth paying out the extra for the 'image stabiliser' for
    > > those low light long
    > > distance shots, or is the image stabiliser an expensive gimmick? thanks
    > > for any advice.

    >
    > Stabilizing technology does work. It helps, but it can only do so much.


    Well, yes; but that "so much" is 3-4 stops of slower shutter speeds
    available for hand-holding, so it's a rather *big* "so much".
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jun 24, 2006
    #4
  5. JWH

    m Ransley Guest

    It is worth it if it is mechanical, I just bought a sony H5 , I can
    hand held at 3-5 stops lower. It is something that will expand your
    shooting dramatically. I will not buy another camera without it.
     
    m Ransley, Jun 24, 2006
    #5
  6. JWH

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > "Joseph Meehan" <> writes:
    >
    >
    >>JWH wrote:
    >>
    >>>My uncle Ron is poised to buy a pocket digital camera. the Canons
    >>>look as good as any ??
    >>>
    >>>but is it worth paying out the extra for the 'image stabiliser' for
    >>>those low light long
    >>>distance shots, or is the image stabiliser an expensive gimmick? thanks
    >>>for any advice.

    >>
    >> Stabilizing technology does work. It helps, but it can only do so much.

    >
    >
    > Well, yes; but that "so much" is 3-4 stops of slower shutter speeds
    > available for hand-holding, so it's a rather *big* "so much".



    I agree, having used IS digital cameras since they were first
    available. Now my pocket camera is an SD700IS, and the IS is very
    worth having if shooting in less than bright light.

    Phil
     
    Phil Wheeler, Jun 24, 2006
    #6
  7. JWH

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    Joseph Meehan wrote:
    > JWH wrote:
    >
    >>My uncle Ron is poised to buy a pocket digital camera. the Canons
    >>look as good as any ??
    >>
    >>but is it worth paying out the extra for the 'image stabiliser' for
    >>those low light long
    >>distance shots, or is the image stabiliser an expensive gimmick? thanks
    >>for any advice.

    >
    >
    > Stabilizing technology does work. It helps, but it can only do so much.
    >


    Yes ..some folks think it can stop motion of the subject. It
    cannot, but it sure helps with motion of the shooter.

    > I don't have any right now, but if I were buying a new lens, I would
    > likely look for it.
    >


    At this point the only DSLR lenses I use without IS are special
    ones (50mm f/1.8, fisheye, etc.).

    Phil
     
    Phil Wheeler, Jun 24, 2006
    #7
  8. JWH

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    JWH wrote:
    > My uncle Ron is poised to buy a pocket digital camera. the Canons look as
    > good as any ??
    >
    > but is it worth paying out the extra for the 'image stabiliser' for those
    > low light long
    > distance shots, or is the image stabiliser an expensive gimmick? thanks
    > for any advice.
    >
    >


    Yes. And very handy if you shoot in places like some museums
    where they don't allow flash or tripod.

    Phil
     
    Phil Wheeler, Jun 24, 2006
    #8
  9. JWH

    Bob Williams Guest

    JWH wrote:

    > My uncle Ron is poised to buy a pocket digital camera. the Canons look as
    > good as any ??
    >
    > but is it worth paying out the extra for the 'image stabiliser' for those
    > low light long
    > distance shots, or is the image stabiliser an expensive gimmick? thanks
    > for any advice.
    >
    >


    If you are talking 10-12X optical zoom, Image stabilization is not only
    helpful, it is essential. (Unless, of course you lug around a tripod).
    IS is becoming very common now on many new cameras, even those with 4X zoom.
    I think that the entire Panasonic line now has IS included.
    I have a 2 year old Panasonic FZ15 (12X Zoom)and IS works great.
    If you like Canon P/S a lot, the S3 IS is a winner.
    Bob Williams
     
    Bob Williams, Jun 24, 2006
    #9
  10. In article <qwcng.44158$>,
    "JWH" <> wrote:

    > My uncle Ron is poised to buy a pocket digital camera. the Canons look as
    > good as any ??
    >
    > but is it worth paying out the extra for the 'image stabiliser' for those
    > low light long
    > distance shots, or is the image stabiliser an expensive gimmick? thanks
    > for any advice.


    It's important for telephoto shots even in fairly good light. Some IS
    systems reduce motion blur from vibrations and some can get a nearly
    perfect lock as long as you don't move out of range.

    For wide and medium ranges it's usually cheaper to have a large aperture.
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, Jun 24, 2006
    #10
  11. JWH

    Marvin Guest

    JWH wrote:
    > My uncle Ron is poised to buy a pocket digital camera. the Canons look as
    > good as any ??
    >
    > but is it worth paying out the extra for the 'image stabiliser' for those
    > low light long
    > distance shots, or is the image stabiliser an expensive gimmick? thanks
    > for any advice.
    >

    I like to take photos in museums where a flash isn't
    allowed, not is a tripod. I just got a camera with an image
    stabilizer. It is worth the cost to me.
     
    Marvin, Jun 25, 2006
    #11
  12. JWH

    Pete D Guest

    Well yes and no!

    Yes if you need to take shots under those circumstance or already do and
    they come out crap.

    No if you never shoot under those circumstances anyway.

    Only you will know the answer to the above.

    "JWH" <> wrote in message
    news:qwcng.44158$...
    > My uncle Ron is poised to buy a pocket digital camera. the Canons look as
    > good as any ??
    >
    > but is it worth paying out the extra for the 'image stabiliser' for those
    > low light long
    > distance shots, or is the image stabiliser an expensive gimmick? thanks
    > for any advice.
    >
    >
     
    Pete D, Jun 25, 2006
    #12
  13. (m Ransley) writes:

    > It is worth it if it is mechanical, I just bought a sony H5 , I can
    > hand held at 3-5 stops lower. It is something that will expand your
    > shooting dramatically. I will not buy another camera without it.


    I've never actually owned any IS; the one I'm most likely to own at
    this point is a $1600 lens for my Nikon D200. The 18-200 VR gives
    back nearly all it gains in the VR in slow glass, so that's useless.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jun 25, 2006
    #13
  14. Phil Wheeler <> writes:

    > At this point the only DSLR lenses I use without IS are special ones
    > (50mm f/1.8, fisheye, etc.).


    Wow. The 50mm f/1.8 is the *least* special lens ever made for a 35mm
    or DSLR camera.

    I know I can get a 70-200 f/2.8 VR (for a mere $1600). Where can I
    find a 28-70 f/2.8 VR? Or a 135mm f/2 VR?
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jun 25, 2006
    #14
  15. JWH bedacht in news:qwcng.44158$:

    > My uncle Ron is poised to buy a pocket digital camera. the Canons
    > look as good as any ??
    >
    > but is it worth paying out the extra for the 'image stabiliser' for
    > those low light long
    > distance shots, or is the image stabiliser an expensive gimmick?
    > thanks for any advice.
    >
    >


    YES! YES! YES!

    (I own a Canon S1 IS and a KM 5D. Both have image stabilization. I love
    it.)

    JL
     
    Justus Lipsius, Jun 25, 2006
    #15
    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. A. Yarrington
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    483
    A. Yarrington
    Nov 25, 2003
  2. ITS WORTH SPENDING 5 MINUTES

    , Jul 27, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    442
    JamesBenson
    Jul 29, 2004
  3. Stuart Friedman

    Opinion on Facet Video's Video Stabiliser

    Stuart Friedman, Jan 4, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    9,539
    mtvs12
    Oct 31, 2008
  4. Tumbleweed

    Tests of IS 75-300 stabiliser

    Tumbleweed, Mar 30, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    246
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,238
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page