Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 30

Thread: Image Stabilization -- is it useful?

  1. #1

    Question Image Stabilization -- is it useful?

    Hi again i do not own a camera with such features yet (i think they are called different names by different brands?) but turns out that some of my indoor shots without flash are a bit OOF ...possibly still usable if printed at lower res i suppose?

    read mixed opinions on this feature with most people saying it helps. for dslr, this feature seems to be quite an expensive one (i think some are in the body while some in the lens, which is better, I have no idea =p) while in pns, megazooms, some form of stabilization seems to be getting more common.

    so should this be something to consider when getting a dslr? or is stabilization overrated?

    thanks!

  2. #2

    Default Re: Image Stabilization -- is it useful?

    I've not used the IS/VR/OIS/etc on digicams or the sensor shift DSLRs before but i can tell u for the IS on Canon lenses, yes, it is useful. How useful however, really depends on what you shoot. Is it worth the extra dough? Again, it depends on what you want to shoot.

  3. #3
    Member smtan24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    1,496

    Default Re: Image Stabilization -- is it useful?

    Image Stabilization helps in low light condition but its no substitute for a tripod. Do you normally take pictures in low light conditions?

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    270 degree of Singapore
    Posts
    6,741

    Default Re: Image Stabilization -- is it useful?

    I have use Mega OIS (optical) on Panasonic consumer P&S camera and AS (sensor base) on KM DLSR, both are effective, especially using long zoom lens, or low light condition.

    Sony will come out a Alpha 100 DSLR with SSS similar (slightly improved)to KM's AS aound the end of the month. The good thing about sensor base Image Stabilization is it work on almost all the lenses (including 3rd party like sigma/tamron) you own.
    Sony Alpha 700 hobbyist

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    1.45N 103.83E
    Posts
    3,202

    Default Re: Image Stabilization -- is it useful?

    IS will help you gain 1 to 2 stops but you still need to control your handling. Since I got my IS lens, it had help me improved on low light as well as normal light condition. Alternatively, use tripods.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    3,287

    Default Re: Image Stabilization -- is it useful?

    Of course it is useful.

  7. #7
    Moderator ortega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    23,686
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default Re: Image Stabilization -- is it useful?

    great for P&S cameras and fun shots in low light

    But for serious work, nothing beats a tripod

  8. #8

    Default Re: Image Stabilization -- is it useful?

    Quote Originally Posted by ortega
    great for P&S cameras and fun shots in low light

    But for serious work, nothing beats a tripod
    Not really true. There are situations where, even if it is serious work, you can't use a tripod. Like for example, concert/theatre photography or safaris (from what i heard they don't let u use even monopods on the jeep thingies). Museums as well.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    12,938

    Default Re: Image Stabilization -- is it useful?

    useful but have to know it's limitations (e.g. cannot freeze moving subjects, really slow shutter speeds still requiring tripods).

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,164

    Default Re: Image Stabilization -- is it useful?

    First, stablizer will not help u with OOF. OOF means its too dark for your camera to focus. One trick is to ask your friend to use a lighter of handphone for you to focus and then shoot. As for blur (in case u got blur between oof n blur), yes stabilizer helps. I use wide and lens with stabiliser. first one have nice bokeh but the other one allow you to shoot smaller aperture which have more detail. So each cannot be compared bec each have different purpose. But keep in mind that stabilizer only "helps". If you can't even focus because its too dark, forget stabilizer.

  11. #11
    Moderator ortega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    23,686
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default Re: Image Stabilization -- is it useful?

    Quote Originally Posted by Denosha
    Not really true. There are situations where, even if it is serious work, you can't use a tripod. Like for example, concert/theatre photography or safaris (from what i heard they don't let u use even monopods on the jeep thingies). Museums as well.
    i shoot concerts hand held, so do all the other pros

    safari, I have not had the pleasure of going to one, i'll take your word for it
    museums? i would think if it is for pleasure then you might not be able to use a tripod
    but if you are contracted to take photos i would think you would be able to use a tripod

  12. #12

    Default Re: Image Stabilization -- is it useful?

    Quote Originally Posted by ortega
    i shoot concerts hand held, so do all the other pros
    Erm.. yeah, that was my point, you can't use a tripod so IS would be useful. At least it has been for me.

  13. #13

    Default Re: Image Stabilization -- is it useful?

    Have IS better than don't have....handy if the tripod not around like me most of the time.

  14. #14
    Moderator ortega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    23,686
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default Re: Image Stabilization -- is it useful?

    Quote Originally Posted by Denosha
    Erm.. yeah, that was my point, you can't use a tripod so IS would be useful. At least it has been for me.
    ok, i see your point

    i come from the time of film and manual focusing
    so i do not need IS/OIS/VR to shoot at 1/15 with a 80-200 f2.8
    but i do see your point and agree with you

  15. #15

    Default Re: Image Stabilization -- is it useful?

    Quote Originally Posted by DeSwitch
    IS will help you gain 1 to 2 stops but you still need to control your handling.
    This is one piece of good advise.
    IS is not a cure-all for shakes - it merely lets you escape with a few stops more than what you would usually have to use.

  16. #16

    Default Re: Image Stabilization -- is it useful?

    yes it does help if one has shaky hands or if the breathing technique is not right.
    but it is always best to get the basics right from the start.
    technology does help to a certain degree.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    EAST
    Posts
    236

    Default Re: Image Stabilization -- is it useful?

    Quote Originally Posted by sentientpuppets
    Hi again i do not own a camera with such features yet (i think they are called different names by different brands?) but turns out that some of my indoor shots without flash are a bit OOF ...possibly still usable if printed at lower res i suppose?

    read mixed opinions on this feature with most people saying it helps. for dslr, this feature seems to be quite an expensive one (i think some are in the body while some in the lens, which is better, I have no idea =p) while in pns, megazooms, some form of stabilization seems to be getting more common.

    so should this be something to consider when getting a dslr? or is stabilization overrated?

    thanks!
    For your particular situation, the 'OOF' could be due to one of the following reasons
    1 - Wrong focusing point on subject
    2 - Shooting moving subjects at low shutter speed
    3 - Shooting at shutter speeds that you are unable to hand hold
    Image Stabilization will help only for reason 3.

    Is it really absolutely and utterly important to have IS all the time? I dont think so.
    Is it useful for getting a higher % of acceptably sharp shots at low shutter speeds? It definately is!
    Hoped this helped

  18. #18

    Default Re: Image Stabilization -- is it useful?

    the short answer to that would be yes. it does come at a price, but it is definitely worth it.

  19. #19

    Default Re: Image Stabilization -- is it useful?

    Thanks every one for the advice!

    i guess maybe OOF is not the proper term to use? The camera shows a green in focus but with a hand-shaking icon flashing...so i usually take my chances =p with mixed results as mentioned. So maybe i should say not sharp instead?

    i dun usually take pictures in the dark, maybe more of not enough light? For instance like in cafes or sth and don't want to use the harsh flash if the lighting around is sufficient? i suppose a longer exposure is needed and my hands shake or sth (yeah quite informal so no tripods/monopods used )

    all in from the replies is that IS in some form or other would help..and if it's within budget, why not? i believe it helps at the telephoto end as well right?

    thanks all once again!

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    sing
    Posts
    3,353

    Default Re: Image Stabilization -- is it useful?

    I thought it was not important or useful.
    Or so I said (maybe in Minolta Forum)

    I was wrong.

    Realised it on a trip to Thailand.

    Busy taking evening low light scenery of all the great joints along Pattaya's Beach Road (ya, they got a Beach Rd too, except it really is fronting a beach next to the sea).

    OIS would be great.

    Tempted to get the Lumix FX01 now. 28mm too and stores flat.
    Last edited by ricohflex; 7th July 2006 at 01:07 AM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •