Gromit
member
Reged: 03/06/2008
Posts: 194
Loc: Sunny Swansea, UK
|
|
I'm looking for some opinions on the image stabilisation systems used by the different camera makers. My problem is that I suffer from a condition that makes my hands tremble at times - it's not that bad but I usually have to use higher shutter speeds than most. I currently use a Fuji S9500 but am now looking to change to a DSLR.
Where possible I use a tripod or monopod, but it's not always convenient. A lot of my photography includes landscapes or seascapes and trying to use a tripod on something like wet sand isn't always an option. So I'm hoping that a DSLR with image stabilisation will help, together with the option of using a higher ISO than I currently can with my current camera, without increasing noise levels too much.
The problem is, which is the better option - does one give better results than the other? Is the in-camera stabilisation offered by Pentax and Olympus better, as it can be used with any lens? Or is the in-lens method, that Canon and Nikon use, better? I see Nikon claim their in-lens method best as it's optimised for each lens, but they would say that wouldn't they.
Thanks
|
alanS
Dr Dust
Reged: 30/09/2005
Posts: 3510
Loc: Up North, England.
|
|
hello and welcome. 
There'll de differing views on which is the most effective system so maybe it'll be best to decide which is best for you.
Obviously in body image stabilisation will work with any lens but not all lenses are available with image stabilisation built in. This will reduce your choice of lenses if IS has a high priority for you.
I don't know if the size and weight of the camera is an issue for you to think about but one range of DSLR's to consider could be Olympus as they have in body IS and are small and compact. I believe that they make the most compact DSRL on the market, if I'm wrong I'm certain that I'll be corrected.
--------------------
Alan's defence lawyer claimed that "Booze played no part in his typo's."
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4463
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
There'll de differing views on which is the most effective system so maybe it'll be best to decide which is best for you.
I honestly don't think there's a lot to choose between the various systems. They all work in the sense of doing what it says on the tin. None of them are much if any use when the camera is mounted on a tripod, and none of them compensate for blurring caused by motion of the subject.
Quote:
Obviously in body image stabilisation will work with any lens but not all lenses are available with image stabilisation built in. This will reduce your choice of lenses if IS has a high priority for you.
In particular, stabilized wide angle lenses are uncommon because most people don't find the need for them. IS/VR lenses also carry a price premium.
Quote:
I don't know if the size and weight of the camera is an issue for you to think about but one range of DSLR's to consider could be Olympus as they have in body IS and are small and compact. I believe that they make the most compact DSRL on the market, if I'm wrong I'm certain that I'll be corrected.
Good point but a bit of extra weight might actually help steady the camera.... recently I shot a picture on my Canon 5D with 24-105L IS lens at 0.5 sec, hand held, it came out sharp, I don't think I'd have been able to do that with a lighter camera; even attempting the shot without IS would have been insane. Having said that, the Oly E-3 isn't exactly lightweight.
|
RichardK
member
Reged: 21/11/2006
Posts: 104
Loc: London
|
|
Lens-based stabilisation is always said to give better results (~4 stops advantage) than in-body stabilisation (~2 stops) and I've seen comparisons that seem to bear this out.
The Canon 18-55 kit lens now has IS and is said to be excellent (image and stability-wise) given it's price/position. Of course there is also the 17-55 f2.8 if you have the money...
Richard
|
alanS
Dr Dust
Reged: 30/09/2005
Posts: 3510
Loc: Up North, England.
|
|
And there's the canon 17-85 IS USM.
One thing is the visual effect the in lens IS has as you look through the lens whilst it's operating. Do the in body IS systems create the same visual effect?
--------------------
Alan's defence lawyer claimed that "Booze played no part in his typo's."
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 36970
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
No, because the sensor isn't in the optical path leading to the viewfinder.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
alanS
Dr Dust
Reged: 30/09/2005
Posts: 3510
Loc: Up North, England.
|
|
I thought not, but I didn't know for sure. I find the effect a little unpleasant but I suppose it's better than an image spoilt by shake.
--------------------
Alan's defence lawyer claimed that "Booze played no part in his typo's."
|
Roger_Provins
Made-it Man
Reged: 22/10/2005
Posts: 2813
Loc: Gloucester, UK
|
|
Quote:
Lens-based stabilisation is always said to give better results (~4 stops advantage) than in-body stabilisation (~2 stops) and I've seen comparisons that seem to bear this out.
... Sony say 4 stops for the a700 and having used the camera for many months I find no reason to doubt their claim.
--------------------
Rog
|
DaveG40
enthusiast
Reged: 21/07/2007
Posts: 245
|
|
What Digital Magazine did a group test a while ago on I.S systems and the Nikon VR system came out top.
Recently the big 2 have turned to I.S kit lenses, probably as a response to Sony, Pentax & Olympuses etc "in body" I.S systems.
I have very shakey hands myself & went for camera with in body I.S because regardless of what lens you fit it has I.S 24/7, unless you turn it off of course  with the camera's IS i can go as low as 1/30 without image blur, I tried a Nikon D80 at 1/80 without a VR lens and binned every image, increasing shutter speeds & or changing ISO settings can also help counteract shake, I've found that camera comfort (feel & weight etc) can also make a big difference.
As for what's best for you only you can decide that, regardless of the system; in body or in lens they do work,the benefit of in body I.S is that every lens you get for the camera will be image stabilized, & because the lenses don't have I.S they tend to be cheaper than I.S equipped lenses.
|
Gromit
member
Reged: 03/06/2008
Posts: 194
Loc: Sunny Swansea, UK
|
|
Thanks for your replies so far.
From your opinions it seems I should be right in thinking that it's more of a personal choice, which is what I was hoping for. I didn't want to get to the stage of handling the cameras, only to find one IS system was better than the other, as regards eliminating shake. I do however realise that the way they handle might make a difference to how low a shutter speed can be used. Personally I've always found one with a bit of weight behind it easier to keep steady.
|
alanS
Dr Dust
Reged: 30/09/2005
Posts: 3510
Loc: Up North, England.
|
|
If it helps at all my sister got a really good deal on a Samsung twin lens kit (GX10) and from what I've seen of it it's a very nice thing. She's very happy with it. I expect that the latest model is just as lovely.
--------------------
Alan's defence lawyer claimed that "Booze played no part in his typo's."
|
oliver28
journeyman
Reged: 30/01/2007
Posts: 63
|
|
The overall weight issue I think is genuinely useful in reducing camera shake. I was taking some pictures today with my Pentax K10D (in-body SR like the GX10) and found 1/6 sec at an effective focal length of 120mm gave sharp images. That's a good 3/4 stops over what I might expect without SR. With wideangles (28mm effective) you can do some silly speeds, especially if you take several shots. The SR on the K20D is said to be even better.
|
sjaszczak
A Real Gentleman
Reged: 08/06/2005
Posts: 1080
Loc: York
|
|
Quote:
I thought not, but I didn't know for sure. I find the effect a little unpleasant but I suppose it's better than an image spoilt by shake.
I'm the opposite actually...I think the effect of seeing the effect of the IS through the lens is a good thing.
Having used my 70-200 F4 L IS for a week or so now, I rate it very highly in terms of the effectiveness of the IS (supposedly rated at 4 stops). The other thing I like is having easily accessible IS controls on the lens itself...I don't know about in-camera systems but I'd imaging the settings would be hidden away in the menus somewhere?
--------------------
Steve
My Flickr
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 36970
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Quote:
I thought not, but I didn't know for sure. I find the effect a little unpleasant but I suppose it's better than an image spoilt by shake.
Really? I find it absolutely great, TBH.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
alanS
Dr Dust
Reged: 30/09/2005
Posts: 3510
Loc: Up North, England.
|
|
It's helpful but it makes me feel a bit queezy if it goes on a bit. It's just the way I'm wired. 
--------------------
Alan's defence lawyer claimed that "Booze played no part in his typo's."
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 36970
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
It's certainly a bit odd if you try panning with it in normal mode!
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
sjaszczak
A Real Gentleman
Reged: 08/06/2005
Posts: 1080
Loc: York
|
|
Quote:
It's helpful but it makes me feel a bit queezy if it goes on a bit. It's just the way I'm wired.
Didn't Angela Nicholson recently say it makes her feel a bit weird?
That means there's at least two weirdos out there...well...four if you count me and the other Blackburn Rovers fan I bumped into in York the other day 
--------------------
Steve
My Flickr
|
john_g
Pooh-bah Hoo-ha
Reged: 09/05/2007
Posts: 2418
Loc: Surrey
|
|
Given that the biggest problem with accelerometers (the sensors that measure your wobbliness) is drift, I'd prefer to only use the sensor for the shortest possible time i.e. not whilst gazing hopefully through the viewfinder. Maybe sensors are better now than they were just a few years ago and this worry is redundant, but I feel a need to be convinced.
--------------------
John
And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom - Anais Nin.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/john_gass
|
oliver28
journeyman
Reged: 30/01/2007
Posts: 63
|
|
Quote:
I don't know about in-camera systems but I'd imaging the settings would be hidden away in the menus somewhere?
Nope, just a simple switch on the back of the camera - easy!
|
DaveG40
enthusiast
Reged: 21/07/2007
Posts: 245
|
|
Quote:
That means there's at least two weirdos out there...well...four if you count me and the other Blackburn Rovers fan I bumped into in York the other day
Me Too or should that be five
Tis bad days for Rovers we've lost the best manager we've had for years & now it looks like our best players are on the move too 
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
