PDA

View Full Version : Digital cameras- Is image stabilization a necessity?


Satchmo
2006-11-30, 13:58
I'm guessing in a year from now practically all digital cameras will have this feature. But unfortunately I have to get one for my girlfriend this Christmas. And the ones with IS, usually are found only in the high end models.

What has been your experience? Do they really make that much difference in a natural daylight still shot?

Yonzie
2006-11-30, 14:02
No.
And AFAIK they make the image slightly blurry, although I bet it's all but impossible to notice on consumer stuff.

chucker
2006-11-30, 14:19
For me, it's very useful, because I have a motor issue with my hands causing a lot of erratic movement, and therefore a very wiggly picture.

To the average person? Nah.

turtle
2006-11-30, 14:37
Most of the time you won't notice a difference unless you normally shoot with a slow shutter speed, as in less than 1/125 sec.

alcimedes
2006-11-30, 15:14
Only time I would think it would matter under those conditions is if you're doing a lot of zooming on a target. Then hand movement becomes exaggerated.

Partial
2006-11-30, 15:23
Only time I would think it would matter under those conditions is if you're doing a lot of zooming on a target. Then hand movement becomes exaggerated.

The man speaks the truth. If you're getting an Ultra-zoom, then yes. If you're going to be doing 5x or less optical, then its probably unnecessary.

babelfish
2006-11-30, 16:13
Depending on the camera, it can be very useful in certain situations.

For example, let's say that your camera can go to a max ISO of 800 at which the image becomes very noisy. Depending on the camera and its own image stabilisation hardware/software, the IS feature can give you one or two extra f-stops, allowing you to shoot with ISO 400 which may allow for a better, less noisy image.

As alc said, also useful if zooming in a lot.

But from your post, seeing that most of the pictures would be taken in natural daylight, this shouldn't really be a big factor.

Ryan
2006-11-30, 16:15
I find it useful for any telephoto shots (I don't actually have it, but I've used some lenses with the feature), and even "normal" stuff because, like chucker, I can't hold my hand still at all. Heck, in my biology class last year I couldn't do some of the hand-on activities because my hands shake so much.

Artap99
2006-11-30, 16:50
Save the money you'd be spending on that option and just get a tripod.

chucker
2006-11-30, 16:58
Save the money you'd be spending on that option and just get a tripod.

A tripod can naturally be very useful, but doesn't exactly tackle the same problem.

turtle
2006-11-30, 17:10
I use a monopod regularly and it is very convenient to carry when I know I'm going to be taking pictures.

Ryan
2006-11-30, 17:12
Save the money you'd be spending on that option and just get a tripod.That's what I was going to recommend, but it seems like he isn't buying this for serious photography, so IS would probably be adequate in his (or his girlfriend's) situation.

Windswept
2006-11-30, 17:41
I find it useful for any telephoto shots (I don't actually have it, but I've used some lenses with the feature), and even "normal" stuff because, like chucker, I can't hold my hand still at all. Heck, in my biology class last year I couldn't do some of the hand-on activities because my hands shake so much.
Hope you weren't thinking of becoming a neurosurgeon then, Ryan. :)

Ryan
2006-11-30, 18:49
Hope you weren't thinking of becoming a neurosurgeon then, Ryan. :):lol:

No. Did I mention I barely scraped by with a B in that class? :p

Windswept
2006-11-30, 18:55
:lol:

No. Did I mention I barely scraped by with a B in that class? :p
Do you drink a lot of cola drinks, by any chance? :)

admactanium
2006-11-30, 19:01
if you like taking pictures without a flash then image stabilization is a big benefit. i personally don't like flashes that much even with my slr so IS would be a help but i don't own any IS lenses.

Ryan
2006-11-30, 19:49
Do you drink a lot of cola drinks, by any chance? :)Nope. I only drink caffeine once in a while.

dmegatool
2006-11-30, 20:04
but i don't own any IS lenses.

IS could be on the lens but it could be taken in charge by the camera itself. In that case, the IS would apply to all the lens :)

I don't know if many camera offers that option but I remember seeing it

chucker
2006-12-01, 01:10
Do you drink a lot of cola drinks, by any chance? :)

FWIW, in my particular case, this problem is a birth defect, so while I have become a bit of a caffeine addit in the recent years, that is not the reason. :)

scratt
2006-12-01, 01:48
Without image stabilisation on video cameras I could not film skydiving, period.

When Sony had (yet another) technical problem with the release of their HD cameras the image stabilisation did not work and we had to have the whole lot replaced with a different spec of Sony cameras.

Dorian Gray
2006-12-01, 10:19
In natural daylight image stabilisation won't make much difference, but methinks you're kidding yourself if you think your girlfriend will only use the camera in such conditions. What about indoor shots?

In duller conditions, things one can do to get good, natural-looking shots (without flash) include:

Use a tripod or monopod. Even if you don't rest these on the ground, their weight hanging from the tripod socket has a big stabilising effect. Along the same lines, because Force = Mass x Acceleration, a camera of some weight is easier to hold still than a feather-light one.

Use the zoom at its widest setting. This helps because a shorter focal length minimises the effects of camera shake (as mentioned by alcimedes: for example, with a 3x zoom, the long end will result in 3x more shake-induced blur than the wide end at moderate shutter speeds), and more importantly, small digicam lenses are much faster (i.e. they let in much more light) at the short end of their zoom lens. A happy side effect of using the zoom at its widest setting is that the resulting perspective is more dynamic and inviting than the flat and boring views often delivered by long lenses.

Increase the ISO setting.

Squeeze the shutter button rather than jabbing it. Hold the camera on its top and bottom surfaces with your thumb and forefinger, then imagine squeezing your fingers together rather than pushing with your forefinger. Take your time, increasing the pressure gradually over a second or so until the shutter fires.

Rest the camera on a stationary surface, or failing that, rest your elbows or shoulders on a stationary surface (such as a table or doorway).

Brace the camera by holding it with both hands, shrug your shoulders, lock your elbows against your torso and push the camera lightly against your face/eye-socket/nose/forehead/whatever. This doesn't work with cameras with no optical viewfinder because you're forced to hold the thing in mid-air to see what you're shooting.

Deliberately under-expose by about a stop or even two.

Breathe in, then breathe out gently while consciously relaxing your muscles. Shoot towards the end of your exhalation.

Listen for (or sense) your heartbeats and time the shot in the still period between two beats. Very difficult if your camera has a significant shutter delay.

Obviously you have no hope of holding your hands still if you've been doing any sort of heavy work beforehand. For absolute maximum stillness you'll need to avoid heavy lifting for at least a couple of hours before shooting, and moderate your caffeine intake. Even carrying a heavy SLR around in one hand will reduce your capacity for stillness. Heavy work is not compatible with delicate work, as any Morse code operator will tell you.

My favourite colour film was Kodachrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodachrome) 25, with an ISO of 25, and I live in the UK, a place not known for its bright sunny skies. That combo teaches you a trick or two about keeping a camera still. ;) If your girlfriend masters the above she'll sneer at image stabilisation. :lol:

AWR
2006-12-01, 10:22
DG, those sound like sniper school lessons. :err:

;)

Windswept
2006-12-01, 10:34
Breathe in, then breathe out gently while consciously relaxing your muscles. Shoot towards the end of your exhalation.

Listen for (or sense) your heartbeats and time the shot in the still period between two beats.
Also the ideal strategy when shooting a firearm, Dorian. ;)

You've fired weapons, have you? :)



Edit: Aw, you beat me to it, AWR. :p

I guess I was daydreaming - remembering times I went target shooting, instead of typing my post. ;)

Have you read Marine Sniper by Carlos Hathcock? (yes, that's his real last name. :D)

AWR
2006-12-01, 10:57
Have you read Marine Sniper by Carlos Hathcock? (yes, that's his real last name. :D)

No I haven't, but I know who he is. [His name is like the male version of Pussy Galore. :) ]

DG, I meant to also say that a lot of those tips (the none-shooting ones, at least) were new to me. Cheers.

Dorian Gray
2006-12-01, 12:03
Ha, I suppose shootings guns and photographs are similar in that very limited regard. Carlos does indeed have quite the name. :lol: I haven't read his book.

To go back to the zoom lens issue, take the example of the unfortunate Canon SD700 IS again, with its 4x zoom lens with a variable aperture (from a fairly bright f/2.8 at the wide end to a murky f/5.5 at the long end). These are very typical specs of small cameras. They mean that the lens is about 4x brighter at the wide end than the long end. So you need a 4x longer shutter speed to get the same exposure. But one can also hold the camera still enough to avoid camera shake at a shutter speed 4x longer at the wide end than the long end. Combine these two factors together and you can avoid camera shake at the wide end of the zoom in conditions of 1/16th the light intensity of the long end. That is a difference of 4 stops and is roughly equivalent to the difference in brightness between a room interior in the daytime and the daylight outside.

In short, if you want good pictures in low light, you can help yourself enormously by using the lens at the widest setting.

Oh, and if your girlfriend likes taking photos after throwing herself out of a plane at 10,000 feet you may need to reconsider the importance of image stabilisation. ;)

Performa636CD
2006-12-10, 17:23
I don't think the stabilization is necessary, especially if the user can manually adjust their shutter speed.

BuonRotto
2006-12-12, 18:49
image stabilizing, if I may try to summarize, is useful for getting slightly slower shutter speed without picking up normal (everyone's hand moves a little) hand jitter. Normally, about 1/50 or 1/60 is the rule of thumb without image stabilization. Shutter speeds below this will start to pick up hand jitter.

Practically, this means it's useful if you have a strong telephoto lens or a macro, which will naturally exaggerate your hand jitter. Again, it buys you 2-3 more shutter stops, maybe down to 1/20 if you're lucky.

Also, natural low light photography will benefit somewhat from image stabilization. Having those extra fractions of a second of exposure time means your shots in low light have a better chance of coming out.

Finally, image stabilizing and lower shutter speeds mean possibly opening the aperture a bit more, which means a smaller depth of field, which can be desirable, again, for things like macros and telephoto conditions.

Schnauzer
2006-12-12, 18:59
DG, those sound like sniper school lessons. :err:

;)


haha... yeah :lol: