VR/IS/Anti Shake


Status
Not open for further replies.

feizhu

New Member
Jun 16, 2007
71
0
0
www.timelessfacade.com
#1
Hi guys,

newbie here. Just wanted to find out if all these anti shake/image stabilizing technologies really make a difference in day to day photography? Cause I am contemplating buying either a new Canon or upgrade my Alpha and apparently Canon's IS is built into the lens whereas Sony's is built into the camera itself. I take quite alot of semi macro shots in rather low light situations so just seeking advice as to which option should I go for. Thanks! :)
 

Galdor

Senior Member
Jul 5, 2006
9,544
0
0
Planet Gaia
s105.photobucket.com
#2
Both are pretty effective I would say, maybe a tripod or external flash would be more useful to you.

Since you are using the Alpha system an upgraded body would be more logical.
 

feizhu

New Member
Jun 16, 2007
71
0
0
www.timelessfacade.com
#3
Hi Galdor, thanks for your reply :) I actually have quite a few old Canon lenses as well from the old days of my D30. But I'm just wondering if these image stablising things actually work. I mean if I can take my shots without the need for it I would go for a Canon. If not, I would stick to a Sony because Canon doesn't have the lenses I want with IS. :(
 

Last edited:

feizhu

New Member
Jun 16, 2007
71
0
0
www.timelessfacade.com
#5
But is anti shake really useful? Cause I see quite a lot of people using Canon or Nikon without IS or VR lenses and their shots turn out much better then mine :(
 

Galdor

Senior Member
Jul 5, 2006
9,544
0
0
Planet Gaia
s105.photobucket.com
#6
Anti Shake does help to an extend but it's not everything in photography. It helps to reduce blurring due to camera/hand shake only.

Better photos as in? If using the same setting and shooting from the same angle, I don't see why your photos are not as good.
 

feizhu

New Member
Jun 16, 2007
71
0
0
www.timelessfacade.com
#7
But hand/camera shake is more pronounced in darker places right? Sorry the better photos were taken using a much better camera thats why I'm tempted to upgrade :p
 

Galdor

Senior Member
Jul 5, 2006
9,544
0
0
Planet Gaia
s105.photobucket.com
#8
But hand/camera shake is more pronounced in darker places right? Sorry the better photos were taken using a much better camera thats why I'm tempted to upgrade :p
In a way yes, because in dark places your shutter speed is slower so there will tend to be hand/camera shake. No amount of IS/VR or Anti Shake from any brand can salvage that. Like I mentioned earlier, it only helps to reduce but will not eliminate that factor. Best is to get a tripod, no need to even upgrade your cam. Your A100 is more than sufficient for day to day usage and I am still using my KM 5D lor.
 

feizhu

New Member
Jun 16, 2007
71
0
0
www.timelessfacade.com
#9
I actually have a tripod but just find it troublesome to lug it everywhere I go. :p Thanks for the explanation bro!
 

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#11
But hand/camera shake is more pronounced in darker places right? Sorry the better photos were taken using a much better camera thats why I'm tempted to upgrade :p
Don't underestimate the power of photoshop, or just getting a good angle. A "better camera" does not necessarily mean better shots unless you know how to maximize it's use.
 

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#12
A better camera in the hands of someone who can unleash the potential can of course give u the better shots.

There are said differences between optical stabilisation vs in camera stabilisation, you can try google for the comparative advantages vs disadvantages on each. But that would probably not be the deal clincher for getting into a camera system.

Ryan
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom