Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: Image Stabilization -- is it useful?

  1. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,164

    Default Re: Image Stabilization -- is it useful?

    Quote Originally Posted by sentientpuppets
    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!
    Yeah.. the handshaking icon usuall means "hand-shake".
    Aside from stabilizers, 2 other things you can consider. slow/rear flash and high ISO. Try to check if your current camera has and practice on that. Its a workaround so you don't need to spend more money. If you must, check out the new Fuji that can reach ISO3200. I would prefer higher ISO than stabilizer if I'm forced to make a priority. Higher ISO makes the photo brighter and background comes out (at the cost of noise/grain).

  2. #22

    Default Re: Image Stabilization -- is it useful?

    Do you understand the basics of photography? A few stops is quite significant. 3 stops is already 8 times. You better go back to Exposure 101. Newbie!

    Quote Originally Posted by michhy
    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.

  3. #23
    Member smtan24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    1,496

    Default Re: Image Stabilization -- is it useful?

    Quote Originally Posted by singlish
    Do you understand the basics of photography? A few stops is quite significant. 3 stops is already 8 times. You better go back to Exposure 101. Newbie!
    I haven't actual tested the anti shake in a proper test but according to Konica Minolta 2 to 3 stops is possible with their camera. Quote from their webpage:

    The Dynax 5D ensures photo-imaging excellence using Konica Minolta's proprietary Anti-Shake technology, which employs an exclusive CCD-Shift mechanism to compensate for blurring caused by camera shake - even when taking photos in dimly lit scenes, in natural light with a telephoto lens, or in macro shots where extra stability is vital for a sharp shot. This innovative Anti-Shake technology not only provides the equivalent correction effect with a shutter speed 2 to 3 stops slower*2, but also compatibility with any Dynax system lenses*1.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    1.45N 103.83E
    Posts
    3,202

    Default Re: Image Stabilization -- is it useful?

    Quote Originally Posted by singlish
    Do you understand the basics of photography? A few stops is quite significant. 3 stops is already 8 times. You better go back to Exposure 101. Newbie!

    Dont understand this statement. What is 3 stops is already 8 times.? Sorry I'm a Newbie too.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Legion
    Posts
    7,751

    Default Re: Image Stabilization -- is it useful?

    Quote Originally Posted by DeSwitch
    Dont understand this statement. What is 3 stops is already 8 times.? Sorry I'm a Newbie too.
    guess he mean 3stop faster = shutter speed / 8 or can use a faster shutter which is 8x slower than before like 1/60 > 1/8

  6. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,164

    Default Re: Image Stabilization -- is it useful?

    Quote Originally Posted by DeSwitch
    Dont understand this statement. What is 3 stops is already 8 times.? Sorry I'm a Newbie too.
    Theoretically 1/60 is the slowest you can go to. 1 stop is 1/30.. Next stop is 1/15... next stop is 1/7.5.. so 7.5 / 60 = 8... remember that 1 stop doubles the amount of light..

    but for coffee drinkers like me... i can only go safely at 1/15... so this is just a guideline.

  7. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    283

    Default Re: Image Stabilization -- is it useful?

    at 400mm, any handshake you do will definitely result in blur. if you have IS, turn it off, shoot. turn it on, shoot. you can feel the difference just looking through the viewfinder. IS is really good for long lenses.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    270 degree of Singapore
    Posts
    6,741

    Default Re: Image Stabilization -- is it useful?

    Quote Originally Posted by Horsba85
    at 400mm, any handshake you do will definitely result in blur. if you have IS, turn it off, shoot. turn it on, shoot. you can feel the difference just looking through the viewfinder. IS is really good for long lenses.
    Not only long lens Anti-Shake work for wide angle to take indoor shots as well.
    Sony Alpha 700 hobbyist

  9. #29

    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!
    VR/IS/AS is no panacea for bad technique nor is it a replacement for a stable tripod - no matter what anyone else says/thinks. Learn to hold the camera steady (or use a tripod - which ever the situation dictates) and not rely on technological crutches.

    Another issue maybe that you may not have focussed the lens at the correct spot.
    Last edited by Tetrode; 7th July 2006 at 08:36 PM.

  10. #30

    Default Re: Image Stabilization -- is it useful?

    I see ....so I should improve my fundamentals first before thinking about all the tech =P ...but thinking of getting the S3 to replace my current pns so i guess the IS would prob come in useful overall?

    thanks for all the helpful replies!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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
  •