Is Image Stabilizer Really Necessary?

[felix975]

I'm in the market for a new digital, point-and-shoot camera. I have a Canon 230 which was a great little camera for a while, but the 2.3 Megapixels and low image quality aren't satisfying me anymore now that I've seen what's on the market.

I started off looking at the Sony DSC T9, but was scared off from pursuing this model as people said it had less than stellar night shots. Half my shots are usually in bars with friends or shenanigans afterwards. The N1 looked like a better model, but I'm hesitant over the fact it's got such a large touchscreen (ie: easy to scratch, no viewfinder).

I've been hearing that the Canon SD700 is coming out soon, but it looks like the middle/end of May at best and I'd like to replace my camera soon as its nearing the end of grad school.

Is it better to wait for this camera or is their one out on the market now I should look at? I'm not opposed to switching brands, but have the following requirements:

Budget

What budget have you allocated for buying this camera? None. I'm willing to spend what's necessary for a great camera.

Size

What size camera are you looking for? Or does size not matter at all to you? The smaller, the better. I'd like something I can carry around in my pocket all day/night to shoot random shots for my website and personal use.

Features

How many megapixels will suffice for you? Again, the more the better.

What optical zoom will you need? Standard to Pro

How important is “image quality” to you? 8-10

Do you care for manual controls? If the camera does it automatically and does it well, I could probably care less. But I like the ability to change color and shutter speeds now and then.

General Usage

What will you generally use the camera for? Nothing professional, but I'd like some high quality shots I can take on trips and bar outings and just random street photos.

Will you be making big prints of your photos or not? Would like to for family events. Relatives always ask for copies.

Will you be shooting a lot of indoor photos or low light photos? Probably half my shots.

Will you be shooting sports and/or action photos? Rarely, but possible action shots now and then.

Any thoughts would be most appreciated.

[coldrain]

You definitely do not need IS for your uses. You want to make low light photos of moving subjects, that needs fast shutter times. IS only helps on making camera shake less on long shutter times or long tele shots.

You need either to flash, or to use a camera that is good in high ISO settings, like the Fuji Z1/Z2, F10/11/30, Sony W50 or Canon A700.

[felix975]

From the looks of it the Fuji Z1 would have the same problem as the Sony T9. I might have been given a shotty answer by someone I talked to, but they related the problems to the fact that the lens does not actually extend outward on the T9, therefore the flash is actually disappated. I could have the explanation entirely wrong, but I remember it had something to do with the lens.

And the Fuji F30 and Canon A700 don't appear to be available until sometime in June.

Is there really that big of a difference between the T9 and the Z1? I still can't get over the design on the T9 and N1s - I know, it's bad. (And I already have a 2Gig Pro Duo card to go in it - an extra from my PSP.)

Or should I just suck it up and go with the Sony DSC W50?

[speaklightly]

Beacause you will be taking photos in club environments where light levels are quite low, you will need a camera with a high ISO capability. Really your best bet is the Fuji F-30 which will be available in May. That would give you the greatest flexibility, the F-30 has ISO settings up to 3200 making your low light level/night/street shots a good deal easier.

Speaklightly

[TheSkipper]

Beacause you will be taking photos in club environments where light levels are quite low, you will need a camera with a high ISO capability. Really your best bet is the Fuji F-30 which will be available in May. That would give you the greatest flexibility, the F-30 has ISO settings up to 3200 making your low light level/night/street shots a good deal easier.

Speaklightly

I tried the Sony T9 for a couple of weeks and decided I was better of with my Canon SD300. What bothered me the most was the fact that the Sony doesn't have an optical viewfinder. Unfortunately other cameras, such as the Fuji F-30 have taken that same short-cut.
Taking pictures in low light level conditions, such as a club, is nearly impossible without a viewfinder since nothing will show up on the screen. A viewfinder will render just about the same view as you have with your eyes. Not sure what to expect from an ISO 3200 rating since I found the grain at ISO 640 (Sony T9) already unacceptable.

The SD300 is my 4th generation Canon Elph. I've skipped the 450, 550, 600, 630 because I was waiting for an Image Stabilizer which is the one thing that I thought from day one was missing on these little cameras which are so prone to movement when pressing the button. IS makes a huge difference when shooting in any condition but especially in low light conditions.

The 4x zoom of the SD700 is a bonus that I didn't expect.

What's holding me back though is that darn selection wheel on the side which I had on one previous model and drove me crazy because it always changed position when putting it in the bag.:mad:

[Vich]

IS does not trump high ISO, nor does it replace it. Also; high ISO can help eliminate the effects of camera shake. It should certianly be your first choice.

That said; I have had good results with using IS in dark settings without flash, even at ISO 100. If you can manage to get 1/30th of a second shutter speed and your subjects aren't moving much, it'll be acceptable as a casual snapshot (with IS). Without IS it will be all blurry handheld. This is especially true if you are zooming in since that magnifies camera shake.

Too bad there's not a high ISO P&S camera that also has IS. But then, that would be expensive enough that you may as well get a DSLR.

Here is a sample shot at 168mm (equiv), ISO 100, f4.0, 1/10th Shutter Speed, and IS on (albiet a very high end IS), no flash.
http://FLASHME.smugmug.com/photos/47142347-M.jpg

I simply forgot to set my ISO high on this one, but it illustrates the point.

It becomes a question of timing and catching the subject in a relatively motionless state. Higher ISO and a wider aperture capability would have eliminated the blur in the dancer's arms, but hey, for 1/10th speed, this is pretty good!

[TheSkipper]

...........I simply forgot to set my ISO high on this one, but it illustrates the point.............



Another good point: Setting ISO prior to a shot is a pain in the butt and often gets forgotten. IS is always there, assuming that you leave it turned on. Unfortunately I also forget to set the ISO back to normal and then the daylight pictures are all crappy.
My real issue with very high ISO however is still the grain. I may prefer certain pictures where moving objects are slightly blurry but the rest of the picture is sharp to pictures that are of poor, grainy quality all over.
...Can't wait to see what a picture, shot at 3200 ISO, looks like.;)

[Vich]

Another good point: Setting ISO prior to a shot is a pain in the butt and often gets forgotten. .;)
Yeah, tell me about it.


...Can't wait to see what a picture, shot at 3200 ISO, looks like.;)
That's very much a factor of what camera. It is a defining point of a camera in many circles, "High ISO Performance". It also is more grainy on darker settings. I have several ISO 1600 shots outdoors that look pretty good.

For example: Here's one of my favorite ISO 800 shots. I have it printed at 8x10 and all I get is "wow!" (of course, its largely owing to the subject, my daughter). Its a recycle, please pardon the re-post:
http://FLASHME.smugmug.com/photos/35306467-M.jpg

The Canon 5D (a $3K camera) is supposed to have about double the ISO performance as my 20D. Wow!

[capedeci]

it was an slr, no wonder its very clean :)

[drsarkar]

interesting thread...Wonder if people find some manufacturers' IS to be better than others?