Image stabilization really helps alot?


Status
Not open for further replies.
Mar 27, 2009
355
0
16
Jurong east
#1
or not really much? cause was wondering if hteres any big diff
 

kentjr

New Member
Apr 7, 2009
377
0
0
#2
It do helps, but not alot bro. ;)
 

lennyl

New Member
Mar 27, 2008
1,520
0
0
Northern California
#3
Like most things, it helps, but it is not a silver bullet. Proper technique will improve its effectiveness. Generally, price and weight aside, it is better to have it than not.
 

Mar 27, 2009
355
0
16
Jurong east
#4
so lets say.. comparing a 400d vs an a200 which will u get as a newbie

a 2nd hand one though.. cause im interested but on budget as just got a new pc :S
 

lennyl

New Member
Mar 27, 2008
1,520
0
0
Northern California
#5
so lets say.. comparing a 400d vs an a200 which will u get as a newbie
When I was picking a DSLR I chose Canon because :

1. I am somewhat familiar with the system

2. There are a wider range of lenses, accessories, camera bodies available

3. There are more users, meaning it is more likely that I can get help if I have questions

4. When I bought my DSLR the Canon 20D was significantly better than anything else in its range.

After a few years of purchasing Canon lenses, accessories and getting used to their system, it'll take a lot for me to switch system. It's something you may want to consider if you get serious with the hobby.

I would not use in-body anti-shake as the sole criteria for selecting a camera, but you have to decide on what is important to you.
 

Titan10k

Senior Member
May 16, 2008
549
0
16
#6
It helps quite a bit for me, but it ain't magic. It won't guarantee you a shake-blur free photo everytime. But the fact that you don't need to worry whether or not you next lens you buy will have IS or not is priceless. It was one of the most important deciding factors that I picked something else rather than Canon/Nikon.
 

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#7
Definitely helps in getting sharper handholding shots especially at the telephoto end, but do not expect it to become a tripod substitute.

Ryab
 

synapseman

Senior Member
May 6, 2003
2,196
0
36
State of Confusion
www.pbase.com
#8
Well, like people say, it's not magic. Your camera holding skills still have to be sound. But it's great to be able to shoot 300mm at 1/20 sec handheld. The best I've done without tripod is 3.2sec. Absolutely no way this can be achieved without any sort of stabilisation.
 

Dream Merchant

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 11, 2007
9,659
6
38
#9
so lets say.. comparing a 400d vs an a200 which will u get as a newbie

a 2nd hand one though.. cause im interested but on budget as just got a new pc :S
What has this got to do with image stabalisation?

Ans: Neither.

I would get / borrow a few good books from the library on The basics of light in photography, Photography and exposure basics and a book on modern digital cameras.
 

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#11
DM i think TS's question of stabilisation in this case is linked a decision to get a body with in-camera sensor stabilisation across all lenses vs say the Canon.

Ryan
 

Sivakis

New Member
Sep 26, 2008
569
0
0
#12
To me, IS helps me in many situations when tripod / monopod is not available:
1. When I'm zooming in deep and slight breathing, heartbeat (I'm skinny... so when my arms are pressed close to my body, heartbeat can sometimes result in very slight vibrations......), hand shivering - all these can be saved, to some extent, by IS.

2. When shooting in dim light conditions and flash is not an option. If shutter speed continues to be slow even after opening the aperture and using high ISO, then the IS can be a life-saver.

As what others have mentioned, although it also depends on what you're shooting most of the time, it's better to have IS than not have it.
 

Dream Merchant

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 11, 2007
9,659
6
38
#13
Ahh...righto.

Thanks for the heads-up Ryan.

I guess it would have been clearer if TS had actually mentioned it.

We can't be expected to be familiar with ALL the DSLR models from all the manufacturers. :)

My take still stands: anyone wanting to learn photography should not be looking at equipment first, but at learning the basics. You'll be surprised how many still don't know the basics of light. Even I don't, and am still learning as equipment expecially artificial light sources evolve.
 

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#14
My take still stands: anyone wanting to learn photography should not be looking at equipment first, but at learning the basics. You'll be surprised how many still don't know the basics of light. Even I don't, and am still learning as equipment expecially artificial light sources evolve.
Thats a definite :thumbsup:
 

2evans

New Member
Nov 8, 2007
1,862
0
0
#15
Dream Merchant is correct in that learning about basic photography will really help your understanding how to correctly expose for a shot. After all, people were shooting all manual before and still getting great shots.

IS will help and prevent camera shake allowing you to shoot at slower shutter speeds, but this will depend on your ability and technique of holding the camera steady.
 

Shin Howard

Senior Member
Feb 18, 2008
1,063
0
36
North Eastern Region
#16
IS seriously help in low light situations, while if you are comparing Lens IS vs Body anti-shake.
I find that Lens IS are more effective.
 

calebk

Senior Member
Jul 25, 2006
10,594
0
0
Clementi
#17
YES! It is VERY IMPORTANT.Try Shooting in a Church without flash. IS is one thing that will save your $$$$ pictures.
Or.....

There's always fast primes :)




But I digress. In any case, any stabiliser is definitely helpful, but whether it is very helpful is relative, isn't it? I'm used to not shooting with stabilised lenses, so if I get a chance to use one, it is a bonus. However, because I do not use stabilised lenses on a regular basis, I work on getting a good handholding technique, to minimise shake, and also minimise reliance on a stabiliser if there is one.
 

Last edited:
May 11, 2009
215
0
0
#18
so lets say.. comparing a 400d vs an a200 which will u get as a newbie

a 2nd hand one though.. cause im interested but on budget as just got a new pc :S
a200 would answer your short term concern of budget. but for the long run, I am sure it would be an all different discussion...
 

Agenda

Deregistered
Jun 24, 2008
210
0
0
Tampines
#19
so lets say.. comparing a 400d vs an a200 which will u get as a newbie

a 2nd hand one though.. cause im interested but on budget as just got a new pc :S
I got myself an a500 2nd hand for like $500, compared to a 400d which is usually priced $100 more, plus i'll probably have to pump in another $50 for IS kit lens.

For me, I'll prefer a200. it's a newer system, and i've tried 1000d, a200 and d40x.

in terms of usability, i would say I prefer a200. as for picture quality, definitely the 1000d.

then again, if you're on a budget, get a a200 or you could consider some pentax dslr as well. don't be easily swayed just because some brands are better known. some people have said, although certain brands have wide range of lens, but how many will they own? and how many are do they need?

for me, sony has everything i need so far plus service center is opened 7 days a week.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom