Nikon and Image Stabilization

[naturesighted]

I'm saving up for my first DSLR (likely a D50) and noticed that Nikon generally doesn't include image stabilization in the body of the camera, only in the VR lenses. I guess I'm wondering if anyone with a D50 or other Nikon DSLR have noticed it being more difficult to shoot without the image stabilization?

I currently have a Canon Powershot S400 Digital Elph that I'm assuming is always using the image stabilization, though I only see the the little icon in low light situations (so possibly its only really on then). I guess my other issue is that I don't want to be restricted to having to use a tripod a lot of the time since my hands aren't the steadiest.

Anyway...thanks for any insight you can provide. Its hard for me (a newbie at SLRs and use to my point and shoot) to discern how important that feature is and whether I need to reconsider Nikon for something like a Pentax, which has those features in-body.

Thanks!! :)
Eric

[David Metsky]

Your Canon doesn't have IS, so it's not ever using it. It's just telling you that it doesn't have enough light to take the photo with a fast enough shutter speed to ensure no blur. It's not doing anything to correct it for you besides warning you.

IS is good in many situations, but it's not a requirement. For very long zoom shots it allows you to shoot hand-held rather than with a tripod. In shorter zoom situations is allows you to shoot in lower light than you could otherwise.

Not all IS is equal. The Nikon lens based system may be better than the Pentax camera-based system; I don't know them well enough to say. But unless you are using a long zoom it's not clear that it's a requirement for you. It would be helpful, but not necessary.

-dave-

[naturesighted]

Good point Dave, thanks for the feedback. I mainly take nature photos and some wildlife, so having a good zoom is important to me, but at the moment it won't be an ultrazoom as they are far out of my price range.

Thanks again,
Eric

[jcon]

I came from a Panasonic FZ20 which had IS. Shooting with the Nikon D50, I really havent needed IS. The ability to shoot at higher ISO helps compensate for no IS. To me, the only time IS is needed is in the tele range and its not a requirement there either, it just helps. There are work arounds to not having IS, like higher ISO, faster shutter, etc....etc...

In my opinon, image stabilization is over rated.

[TNB]

I've found the Nikon VR lens feature quite handy when taking NIGHT photos WITHOUT a tripod (security didn't allow tripods) and in other low level light situations where I am taking photos and unable to use a flash.

[VTEC_EATER]

In my short experience with a DSLR, I dont find image stabilization a requirement. If its a night shot, try to support your body, arms, hands, and camera all in a stable position, like sitting on the ground, or leaning against a wall, hold your breath, and all those other little tricks to keep from twitching. It helps, but with shutter times at 2 or more seconds you will probably see a little blur at full image size.

[TNB]

It just depends on the type of photography and subject. One of the Nikon VR lenses that I own has two options--basically, one for panning and one when panning is not being used yet there is a lot of movement (as in taking photos from a helicopter). My main VR use, panning action shots in low level lighting without the use of a tripod, a monopod, or a flash--basically, trying to also keep the ISO as low as possible in order to still capture some motion blur (i.e. wheels, tires, background) and capture a clean photo.