Image Stabilization -- is it useful?

[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! :bsmilie:

 

[Denosha]

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.

 

[smtan24]

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

 

[zcf]

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.

 

[DeSwitch]

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.

 

[jbma]

Of course it is useful.

 

[ortega]

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

But for serious work, nothing beats a tripod

 

[Denosha]

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.

 

[mpenza]

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

 

[dawgbyte77]

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.

 

[ortega]

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

 

[Denosha]

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.

 

[trucatus]

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

 

[ortega]

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

 

[michhy]

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.

 

[GmbH.]

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.

 

[Miles]

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! :bsmilie:

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

 

[jdredd]

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

 

[sentientpuppets]

Thanks every one for the advice! :bsmilie:

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!

 

[ricohflex]

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

I was wrong. :bsmilie:

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.