Which cameras have real Image Stabilization?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Don Wiss, Jun 24, 2005.

  1. Don Wiss

    Don Wiss Guest

    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).
     
    Don Wiss, Jun 24, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Don Wiss

    Dizzledorf Guest

    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=firefox-a&q=digital cameras with image 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-cameras-with-image-stabilization/


    DIZZLE
     
    Dizzledorf, Jun 24, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. David J Taylor, Jun 24, 2005
    #3
  4. Don Wiss

    PLONK! Guest

    "Don Wiss" <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    >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
     
    PLONK!, Jun 24, 2005
    #4
  5. Don Wiss

    Don Wiss Guest

    On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 09:58:52 +0200, "PLONK!" <> 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).
     
    Don Wiss, Jun 24, 2005
    #5
  6. Don Wiss

    John Bean Guest

    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!" <> 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
     
    John Bean, Jun 24, 2005
    #6
  7. Don Wiss wrote:
    > On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 09:58:52 +0200, "PLONK!" <> 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, Jun 24, 2005
    #7
  8. 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
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 24, 2005
    #8
  9. Don Wiss

    John Bean Guest

    On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 10:16:33 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    <-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
     
    John Bean, Jun 24, 2005
    #9
  10. 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
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 24, 2005
    #10
  11. Don Wiss

    Don Wiss Guest

    David J Taylor wrote:

    >Personally I have the Panasonic FZ5, my wife has the Panasonic FZ20, but
    >the Canon S2 IS might be another contender.


    He is looking at the two of them that have external flash. Only having
    owned Nikon digital cameras I don't know how external flashes work with
    others. Do they have something like the Nikon TTL that shuts off the flash
    when the picture has enough light? Then each has a special flash that it
    communicates with?

    Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).
     
    Don Wiss, Jun 28, 2005
    #11
  12. Don Wiss wrote:
    > David J Taylor wrote:
    >
    >> Personally I have the Panasonic FZ5, my wife has the Panasonic FZ20,
    >> but the Canon S2 IS might be another contender.

    >
    > He is looking at the two of them that have external flash. Only having
    > owned Nikon digital cameras I don't know how external flashes work
    > with others. Do they have something like the Nikon TTL that shuts off
    > the flash when the picture has enough light? Then each has a special
    > flash that it communicates with?


    Sorry, Don, I don't know. I gave up lugging a flashgun around when I
    moved from film SLRs to digital seven years ago.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 28, 2005
    #12
    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:
    464
    John Navas
    Aug 2, 2003
  2. JJVandJMB

    Which cameras have image stabilization??

    JJVandJMB, Oct 20, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    1,015
    Jupiter
    Oct 22, 2003
  3. kjk

    Long Zooms with Image Stabilization

    kjk, Dec 27, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    343
    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:
    2,249
  5. Al Clark

    Lens stabilization vs Camera stabilization

    Al Clark, Nov 30, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    119
    Views:
    1,828
    Dan Sullivan
    Dec 9, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page