Image stabilization vs. high ISO

[cvicisso]

Now that Jeff's SD800IS review is posted (here (http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_sd800-review/index.shtml)), I find that I'm still on the fence between it and the Fuji F30/F31fd as my next stick-in-my-pocket-and-take-everywhere-camera. The benefits of each have been addressed ad nauseum - so I won't rehash them all... But I have a more fundamental question that I'm sure some of you experts out there can address:

As you know, despite all the hype, image stabilization ('IS' hereafter) is really only good for a few very specific shooting situations:

hand-held shots at stationary objects with [relatively] slow shutter speeds
hand-held shots at super-long focal lengths
Number 2 doesn't really apply in this situation (SD800 vs. Fuji F30/F31fd) because of the small zoom lenses on each, so my question is really all about number 1. Canon and Fuji obviously attack this problem in two completely different ways:
Canon reduces the effects of an unsteady hand with their IS system... but at the expense of subject movement (low shutter speeds are no good for moving subjects - with or without IS)
Fuji reduces the effects of an unsteady hand by increasing shutter speed... but at the expense of potential image noise due to higher light sensitivity (high ISO)
It seems to me that if the Fuji 'gimmick' worked (if the high ISO image quality was vastly superior to a competitor's lower ISO shots), this approach would be superior to the 'IS' approach because it would be usable in all situations - and not limit you to a low shutter speed (and non-moving subjects). Isn't this how the dslr shooters handle low light situations where they can't reduce shutter speed anymore (or risk blurry subjects)? Not enough light? Bump up the ISO. Voila!

It seems that everyone agrees that the high ISO capabilities of the Fuji F30 are incredible - and currently unmatched in the digital point-and-shoot world. My question (finally! :D ) is: where is the point (in shutter speed?) that IS is no longer needed? Can the Fuji get us there - and at the same time not limit us to stationary subjects? In other words, if I'm shooting at 1/500 of a second, all the 'IS' in the world doesn't amount to a hill of beans because my hand [probably] isn't moving fast enough to make a difference. But what about at 1/60"? 1/30"? What is the slowest shutter speed the Fuji (or any digicam) can be at and still not suffer the effects of hand-shake (in general - I know some of us are 'shakier' than others!)?

I've seen IS advertised as saving us anywhere from one to three stops (reality is probably somewhere in the middle), but when I look at the F30 high ISO shots compared to IS-equipped competitors like the SD800, I see the same advantage (one to three stops). But the higher shutter speeds of the Fuji could be used in more situations than the IS-equipped camera (which was forced to use lower shutter speeds).

Sorry for the long, rambling post! Please, please, PLEASE don't start a flame war over this or think that I'm stirring up trouble! I'm really just curious to hear what the 'experts' think about this subject (since I'm certainly a novice). People seem to be pretty touchy on this forum and I seem to have a way with words that naturally offends people, soooo... if I've offended you in any way - please spare everyone else and just flame me with a PM instead of posting in the thread. :D

Thanks in advance!

[truflip]

high ISO - freezes subject
IS - dampens the shake from your hands..

so in other words, you may have IS but if your subject is dancing around, its gonna be blurry.. BUT if you have great high ISO performance, you will be able to freeze the dancing subject***

*** given that you have the same aperture and shutter speed settings on both cameras ;)

[BowerR64]

I believe that, if the ISO is fast enough you dont need the IS. I think it would still be good because we dont always shoot at the high ISO so till they get it high and clean enough the IS is still the better solutioin or a tripod.

[XaiLo]

the problem is your comparing apples to oranges. We can no more tell you which one is going to be more useful to you than you can. The more important question is what, when, where, and how.
what do I mean by this? Well:

What are you going to shoot?

When are you going to shoot it??

where are you going to shoot it???

how are you going to shoot it????

All of those questions are more relevant than what your asking. Nobody here knows your shooting habits. Dependent on how you answer those questions that's what you shoud buy. hth

[BowerR64]

I think they took the ISO off so the next upgrade can have high ISO AND the IS features. Eventualy there will be both ill bet.

[cvicisso]

Thanks XaiLo, my answers are in BLUE:What are you going to shoot?
Stationary subjects in low light. Say, a museum setting for example.

When are you going to shoot it??
In low light conditions (I think this is what you're asking).

where are you going to shoot it???
Indoors.

how are you going to shoot it????
Handheld.So, my question again is at what shutter speed does IS no longer matter in these conditions? Clearly we have to make a few assumptions for the sake of having this conversation - let's assume 'good' handholding ability (minimal 'jerkiness').

My thinking is that if the Fuji F30 attains this minimum shutter speed (all other things being equal) by boosting the ISO and hence shutter speed (as a dslr shooter does when they run out of aperture and lowering the shutter speed would blur the photo - either from hand-shake or subject movement), then it may be the answer (for me). If a shot from a Fuji F30 at 1/60 second ISO 800 is as clear and sharp as a IS-equipped camera can manage at 1/15 second ISO 200, then the Fuji gives the added advantage of freezing subject movement in addition to hand movement. I'm not saying this is the case - only suggesting it as an example.

Another thing people often overlook is the max aperture at telephoto. Here, the Fuji also has a slight edge in light-gathering over the SD800 (f5.0 at 108mm for the Fuji and f5.8 at 105mm for SD800). Not quite a 'stop'... but still might close the gap a bit (allowing faster shutter to compensate for lack of IS).

Thanks for your responses thus far.

[cvicisso]

high ISO - freezes subject
IS - dampens the shake from your hands..

so in other words, you may have IS but if your subject is dancing around, its gonna be blurry.. BUT if you have great high ISO performance, you will be able to freeze the dancing subject***

*** given that you have the same aperture and shutter speed settings on both cameras ;)Thanks truflip - this is exactly my point. In a hand-held, indoor situation, IS can dampen hand movement (to a point), and 'great high ISO performance' (and therefore higher shutter speed) can dampen hand movment (again - only to a point) plus freeze subject movement (to a point).

There surely is a range of shutter speeds (again - for non-super-telephoto shots) where IS is practical - but I don't know what that range is. If IS saves you two stops (let's say), and the available light (and aperture) allow you to shoot 1/30 second at the maximum ISO that you find acceptable for that particular camera, then that should work perfectly (in that situation) because I've seen plenty of examples (my own included - with my S2 IS) where 1/30 second is definitely territory where the IS can save you. In that same situation, if my hypothetical evil twin brother shoots exactly the same shot with his F30: let's say he also saves two stops via the larger aperture (at full zoom) and Fuji's boosting the ISO up to 800 (which for the sake of argument we'll say is 'of the same quality' as my shot with IS at lower ISO) and increasing shutter speed to *whatever*... Assuming that *whatever* is high enough to dampen his hand shake, then we both should be happy with our resulting pictures (assuming everything else is equal), no? And if the subject is moving - he'll be even happier. :D

My question relates to the *whatever*. Where do these two competing technologies (IS vs. high ISO) meet/converge? If the lighting was even lower in the above situation, and my IS-equipped camera had to resort to 1/6 second... I'm not as sure of a non-blurry shot - even with the IS. How fast would the Fuji shoot the same shot? Enough to counter my hand shake? I don't know.

I really don't consider this 'apples and oranges' as I am referring to one problem which two competing technologies attempt to address: blurriness from hand shake.

[XaiLo]

I really don't consider this 'apples and oranges' as I am referring to one problem which two competing technologies attempt to address: blurriness from hand shake.

I have to differ with you here (IS addresses camera movement) and while a by product is that you can shoot at lower shutter speeds ergo gaining more light it, was never meant to address subject movement. Stop action at a minimum requires 1/125 sec.

While higher ISO as with film is a relation between light and media sensitivity. why is this important to subject motion (or stop action)? the more light sensitive the media the less time it takes to achieve a correct exposure; ergo faster shutter speeds are available. Which are needed to stop subject motion.

So I am sorry to say but your logic is flawed and goes against basic photographic principles. These are not competing technologies. Just because you can do something doesn't make what your doing right.

[cvicisso]

Well, XaiLo, I certainly didn't expect you to agree with me! :p

But seriously, I'm not going to get into it with you (again). My point is that the two technologies (IS and high ISO capabiity) can be (and are) used to address the same issue: camera motion due to hand shake. At low focal lengths, increasing the shutter speed reduces the effects of hand shake (much less so at longer focal lengths). Surely you can understand that, right? Increasing the ISO increases the shutter speed (essentially). Sooooo... can you see now how it works yet?

Heck, Fuji even markets this as some sort of image stabilization - I forgot what they call it, but they've got it as one of their 'modes' in the F30. Personally, I think this is kind of cheating on their part (after all - it's not really 'real' image stabilization - in the traditional sense), but the point is that if my logic is flawed, so too must their's be.

Oh, and I never said that IS was meant to address subject movement. I merely said that it's an added benefit of increased shutter speed (from higher ISO performance).

[cvicisso]

Let me try another example to maybe help out a bit.

Let's say a professional is shooting a scene - we'll say a stationary object to make it easy - handheld and in low light. He's using a prime, non-stabilized lens and he can't use a tripod and there's nothing for him to brace against. He's got the 1.8 aperture wide open, but the light only allows him to get to 1/6 of a second at ISO 100. XaiLo, I think you'll agree that most of us would end up with a blurry picture in that scenario, no? So then, what are his choices? What would you do? Simple - you dial up the ISO and get a higher shutter speed to a level that you know (1) you can squeeze off a shot without moving your hands too much (2) the image quality of the camera at that ISO is satisfactory. See?

The pro couldn't take the shot because it would have been blurry (from his hand movement). He addressed the issue by dialing up the ISO and using a faster shutter speed. He could do this because his dslr was capable of high quality ISO shots. See now?

Let me know if you still don't get it.

[unix04]

IMO, i see IS as more feature to compensate for people who dont want to stress over getting a nice shot as opposed to people who want to get the best picture by maximizing the potential of the feature. if i had an sd800 IS, i would appreciate not having to hold still and take lots of time to take the perfect shot. knowing that IS is there save my picture from the hand-shake-of-doom, i'd quickly focus, take the shot and move on in a matter of seconds. thus, to me, IS is a matter more convenience moreso than that of maximizing image quality.

that said...just go get a dslr :D

[BowerR64]

IMO, i see IS as more feature to compensate for people who dont want to stress over getting a nice shot as opposed to people who want to get the best picture by maximizing the potential of the feature. if i had an sd800 IS, i would appreciate not having to hold still and take lots of time to take the perfect shot. knowing that IS is there save my picture from the hand-shake-of-doom, i'd quickly focus, take the shot and move on in a matter of seconds. thus, to me, IS is a matter more convenience moreso than that of maximizing image quality.

that said...just go get a dslr :D

Thats where the P&S cameras are moving too. I have a feeling they took the IS out of the P&S so that the SD1000 will have 1800 iso and IS with 6X optical zoom. You watch it will eventualy be in there.

[tim11]

I'm far from a pro but just let me share my experience as someone who is enjoying the best of both worlds (IS / ISO).
As an answer to cvicisso's last example, I did try macro shot when the sun is really low. I did shoot ISO100 on FZ20 (IS), and simply used higher ISO on F30; both handheld. I found it surprising to see which camera has better success rate - it's the F30.
On last occasion I shot my son's bicycle at ISO1600 at something like <1/10s. This would have been impossible without higher ISO. In my opinion, if people learn forget their one-hander technique, there will be less need for IS; on shorter focal lengths at least.
I still don't know if this higher ISO capability on Fuji can compensate for the lack of OIS on long zoom such as S6000fd though. If it can I'm willing to defect.
So... back to the original OP's query if high and clean ISO can compensate for lack of OIS, to me it is a YES - on shorter focal length.

Edit: Here it is... handheld (though I had to squat down and resting one elbow on a knee).
Exposure time: 0.167 s (1/6)
Aperture: f/4.0
ISO equiv.: 1600
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m116/tim11_2006/F30%20on%20high%20ISO%20Low%20light/061010_13.jpg

Not my best macro, but just to demonstrate how ISO can be useful.
Standing, handheld (2 hands).
Exposure time: 0.050 s (1/20)
Aperture: f/4.0
ISO equiv.: 1600
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m116/tim11_2006/F30%20on%20high%20ISO%20Low%20light/061010_11.jpg

[cvicisso]

Thats where the P&S cameras are moving too. I have a feeling they took the IS out of the P&S so that the SD1000 will have 1800 iso and IS with 6X optical zoom. You watch it will eventualy be in there.I'm not sure that I follow you here... who took the IS out of which P&S? There are many point and shoot cameras with IS - that's what I'm trying to compare with the F30.

[tim11]

I'm not sure that I follow you here... who took the IS out of which P&S? There are many point and shoot cameras with IS - that's what I'm trying to compare with the F30.

I think he meant SD900 has no IS.

[cvicisso]

tim11 - thanks! I thought I was going crazy...

tim11 could not have taken that shot without a camera capable of taking decent ISO 1600 images, and his example certainly had nothing to do with subject movement. And before you say it - yes, he braced his hand (a sort of crude IS - as is a tripod). But think about it for a second before you reply. Imagine the IS-equipped camera of your choice. Unless you think that IS can get you safely lower than 1/6 of a second shutter speed, and unless the camera was capable of the same quality at ISO 1600, it just doesn't matter. IS may save you two stops - but it's in the wrong direction (slower shutter speed than 1/6 of a second). High ISO saved tim11 at least a couple of stops in the right direction - higher shutter speed (to a level that was just marginal enough to take the shot - 1/6 of a second).

Nice work, tim11!

[cvicisso]

I think he meant SD900 has no IS.Oh - ok. I'm not so sure about that prediction though... they'd have to make the SD1000 pretty big to match a 6x lens to that sensor size (1/1.8"). Wouldn't really be an 'SD' anymore if it got too much bigger.

[XaiLo]

"ISO: ISO is a measurement of a digital camera's imaging sensor's sensitivity. Digital cameras with high ISO capability are better able to take low-light images and pictures of fast moving objects."

http://www.digitalcamera-hq.com/digital-cameras/glossary-info_guide.html

Maybe these people will be interested in a protracted discussion with you.

http://www.digitalphotopro.com/articles/2006/mayjune/isospeeds.php


Heck, Fuji even markets this as some sort of image stabilization

btw... marketing exists to elicit a predetermined response, which always reflects the truth as it relates to the facts involved.:rolleyes:

[unix04]

Thats where the P&S cameras are moving too. I have a feeling they took the IS out of the P&S so that the SD1000 will have 1800 iso and IS with 6X optical zoom. You watch it will eventualy be in there.

that's an interesting prediction.

the way canon has been releasing newer models for the SD series, i very much feel canon's simply testing the market to see what works and what doesnt. you can tell by the small differences in each model they make between focal range, sensor size, IS, megapixels, zoom...heck, even the composition of the frame. (while some differences dont seem like small differences, to the average consumer, i dont think they'll think much beyond megapixels)

that said, i think your prediction is far more suited for the canon A series. actually, i think the new a710 IS almost fits your prediction already. but for an ultra compact, i think there will always be a trade-off, and canon may continue to release 2 SD models at a time at any given season, most likely split between IS and ISO performance, while they let the A series take up the best of both worlds in quality + convenience.

but...who knows? maybe canon can come up with some really great ultra-compact p&s solutions! if canon can really pump out the ISO performance and IS all in one on the next generation SD, and keep under the current $400 starting tag, i'm willing to wait before i buy a new p&s to cover for times when i wont have a dslr around.

[BowerR64]

Wich model do you think sells more? the SD or the A series?

Why do you think it sells more?

I can already tell you what people want.

The goal is: Maximum zoom in the lowest light possible with no camera shake, credit card size. So we want 12X zoom, with 3200 ISO that fits in our shirt pocket under $400.

We want to shoot pictures of Britney Spears, on stage, with the stadium lights off in the nose bleed section all this in a pocket camera you can sneak in.

Oh, and we want giga pixel with 30 gig SD cards. :D

[unix04]

Wich model do you think sells more? the SD or the A series?

Why do you think it sells more?

I can already tell you what people want.

The goal is: Maximum zoom in the lowest light possible with no camera shake, credit card size. So we want 12X zoom, with 3200 ISO that fits in our shirt pocket under $400.

We want to shoot pictures of Britney Spears, on stage, with the stadium lights off in the nose bleed section all this in a pocket camera you can sneak in.

Oh, and we want giga pixel with 30 gig SD cards. :D

the current SD's sell because it bundles a great level of convenience and quality all under a good price. (though not nearly good enough to be the main camera for the average prosumer)

that said, there's always a balance of technology and price, and the higher up you go, the higher the premium. im sure canon is fully capable of manufacturing the type of camera you desire, but as technology keeps getting better, and people demand the latest and greatest, i dont think canon will provide all of it's glorious techno-might into the SD without making people pay for it.

if you increased the cost of the SD, im sure a good portion of potential SD customers would look into the wide range of other alternatives out ni the market, and with good reason. canon's not the only ultra-compact manufacturer making great cameras.

on a grander scale, it's not hard to figure out what people want, but if you add into the equation resources it takes, on both sides, to make the most desirable element happen, it takes some time to find the perfect balance (if such a balance should even exist in a rapidly changing marketplace).

i dont know...i could be wrong, but canon's trend with the A and SD series seems to convince me, at least, that you wont see the next generation SD series with high ISO performance with IS, and if they do pull it off, there will be a compromise somewhere else, most likely the main compromise being price.

[tim11]

The goal is: Maximum zoom in the lowest light possible with no camera shake, credit card size. So we want 12X zoom, with 3200 ISO that fits in our shirt pocket....

3200 ISO that fits in shirt pocket is already here - F30. Small print quality for starter... And we all know it's just a matter adding IS. But 12 x zoom.... Don't think the impossible yet. Take the Sony T series. 3x optical without any lens popping out. Honestly, did you dream it was possible 5 years ago? Somehow, they might come out with hybrid lens technology ('traditional' combined with prism) and make all that possible. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
One thing though. That' will not be in the interest of the manufacturers. I, for one, will not be bothered to go DSLR.

[BowerR64]

3200 ISO that fits in shirt pocket is already here - F30. Small print quality for starter... And we all know it's just a matter adding IS. But 12 x zoom.... Don't think the impossible yet. Take the Sony T series. 3x optical without any lens popping out. Honestly, did you dream it was possible 5 years ago? Somehow, they might come out with hybrid lens technology ('traditional' combined with prism) and make all that possible. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
One thing though. That' will not be in the interest of the manufacturers. I, for one, will not be bothered to go DSLR.

I have a pair of those digital binoculers that has a camera in the center of the 2 lenses.

I took the camera apart and this thing has 1 lens! i kid you not man its 8X and it uses 1 freakin lens. The sensor and the glass is not good quality but they already have it down and figured out. Its a fixed lens so its always at 8X zoom but thats not the point. The point is they already have it figured out.

The sony probobly does the same thing but uses digital backwards. Its probobly a 3X single element lens and if your not in the full optical it just compresses the image down. The the other way digital zoom works. Wich images look better on teh sony? full zoom or no zoom?

[flash110]

This thread´s question points to an interesting question, specially for average consumer who won´t buy a very specialized and expensive camera but still will want to take good pictures indoors in low light.

I predict that in some years (not two or three, maybe many more...) P&S cameras will be able to take nice good pictures at ISO 25600 with not much noise and the OIS technology will be left only to high level camera lenses reducing the price of the current P&S with OIS and making them take good stabilized pictures in low light, wouldn´t it be great?

[XaiLo]

This thread´s question points to an interesting question, specially for average consumer who won´t buy a very specialized and expensive camera but still will want to take good pictures indoors in low light.

I predict that in some years (not two or three, maybe many more...) P&S cameras will be able to take nice good pictures at ISO 25600 with not much noise and the OIS technology will be left only to high level camera lenses reducing the price of the current P&S with OIS and making them take good stabilized pictures in low light, wouldn´t it be great?

I would have to say that's not going to be practical considering higher ISO are achieved in the digital realm by way of amplification. By its nature amplification creates distortion. You're talking about taking the current amplified maximum and increasing it five fold, along with it's distortion.

[flash110]

You're talking about taking the current amplified maximum and increasing it five fold, along with it's distortion.


No, im talking about increasing amplification and light sensivility to a maximum and keeping distortion to a minimum, i think this will be the trend for the prosumer digicams in the long term, after all it would require only a faster chip a different software and sensor and it has the advantage of not only reducing handshake effects but also taking pictures of moving obects by reducing shutter speed. OIS technology in my opinion is more complex and i doubt it has much more space for technological improvement given it helps only in certain circumstances

[danielg]

Higher Iso will mean more noise - So I prefer IS over High Iso BUT there will always be occassions where you need high Iso because IS can only give you so much leeway. - the best would be a IS plus great High ISO performance :D

[XaiLo]

No, im talking about increasing amplification and light sensivility to a maximum and keeping distortion to a minimum, i think this will be the trend for the prosumer digicams in the long term, after all it would require only a faster chip a different software and sensor and it has the advantage of not only reducing handshake effects but also taking pictures of moving obects by reducing shutter speed. OIS technology in my opinion is more complex and i doubt it has much more space for technological improvement given it helps only in certain circumstances

Let me try this again there is "no" such thing as CCD sensitivity, distortion is intrinsic to amplification and it is by this means that the ISO standards can be replicated in the digital realm at present there are only two ways to reduce noise. Either it is removed as part of the capture process be it by digital filters or algorithms or you increase the CCD size. and for various reasons both of these solutions have distinct limitations. In addition we're refering to a compact class of camera making the hypothesis highly implausible.

[cvicisso]

In addition we're refering to a compact class of camera making the hypothesis highly implausible.XaiLo, I'm not disagreeing with you - it sounds like you know your stuff (or are one heck of a Googler!), but I would say that tim11's pictures are evidence that this hypothesis (I'm referring to my original ISO vs IS question - not the ultrazoom pocket sized super duper ISO suggestion) is not only completely plausible - but possible. Today. Right now.

And please don't think that I'm saying one (usable high ISO or IS) is better than the other - I completely agree that the ideal setup would be a pocket camera with both. That would give flexibility not possible today. But again - tim11's pictures are evidence that usable (not-noisy) high ISO and IS can be used for the same thing - countering camera motion from hand shake. The IS handles it by moving the CCD or lens element and the high ISO handles it by allowing higher shutter speeds. And yes - you are completely correct that the traditional use for high ISO has always been to force high shutter speeds in order to freeze subject motion... but motion is motion regardless of which side of the lens you're on. The reason people don't use/need IS when they're shooting at 1/250 of a second (and relatively close focal lengths) is because it's not needed. The motion of your hand is frozen by the quick shutter just as the subject's motion is. Usable high ISO allows us to enter that realm (higher shutter speeds), as this reviewer (http://www.photoxels.com/fujifilm-f30-image-quality.html) notes:

"ISO 3200 is usually available only on digital SLRs, so its availability here on a compact digital camera merit some comments. Using a high ISO allows the camera to use a fast shutter speed -- hopefully fast enough -- to reduce or eliminate blurring caused by camera shake and/or subject motion.
"

Now, if you are suggesting that usable high ISO (again - 'not noisy') is not possible today or tomorrow or anytime in small CCDs because "distortion is intrinsic to amplification" then how do you explain the professional reviews of the Fuji F30? Here are a few quotes:

Jeff Keller (http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/fuji/finepix_f30-review/): "I really like the Fuji FinePix F30. It offers low light performance that approaches (but doesn't match) digital SLRs."

Simon Joinson (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf30/): "It doesn't take a professional reviewer to be able to see the superiority of the Super CCD sensor at ISO 800; whereas the Canon result is suitable only for use when you've got no alternative, and for very small prints, the F30 is in an entirely different league. To put things into perspective, the F30 has a similar level of noise (and detail) at ISO 800 to the SD 700 IS at ISO 200. Very, very impressive."

Dan Havlik (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/F30/F30A.HTM): "the Fujifilm Finepix F30 offers the latest bold leap into high ISO shooting in a stylish compact digital camera. In most cases I wouldn't recommend shooting at ISO 3200, but that setting functions as well as it does on the F30 is a tribute to the engineers behind this camera. Shots at ISO 800 were some of the best I've seen from a camera in this class, which means you will get more out of your pictures under a variety of conditions with the F30. While I've preferred competing models with dedicated optical image stabilizers to the Anti-Blur/Picture Stabilization mode offered in the F30, this camera breaks new ground in offering effective expanded light sensitivity in a compact product. That's worth the price of admission alone."

XaiLo - please don't read this as a retaliation or attack on your comments. I respect your opinion and don't know why you take things so personally. I just don't understand why you disagree that usable high ISO can be used to mitigate hand motion.

Also - I am certainly no Fuji fan club member! I really like that they've come so far in low-noise-high-ISO technology, but HATE the fact that they hamstring their products with those stupid, stupid, stupid xD cards and continue to leave out the one feature that everyone wants (including me): IS!! How can they continue to do this in today's market?? Especially with regard to their two ultrazooms - high ISO at short focal lengths is one thing but at 300mm (35mm equiv)??? C'mon, Fuji!!! Are we supposed to carry a tripod in our pockets??

Anyway... I posed the original question becasue I really wanted to know what people thought about ISO vs IS. I guess I got what I asked for!! :D Take care everybody - thanks for the feedback!!

[flash110]

Let me try this again there is "no" such thing as CCD sensitivity, distortion is intrinsic to amplification and it is by this means that the ISO standards can be replicated in the digital realm at present there are only two ways to reduce noise. Either it is removed as part of the capture process be it by digital filters or algorithms or you increase the CCD size. and for various reasons both of these solutions have distinct limitations. In addition we're refering to a compact class of camera making the hypothesis highly implausible.

Ok, i completely admit that in the current technology level you are absolutely right and that´s exactly why what i predicted for some years in the future is not commercially available in 2006, but what if some kind of future nanotechnology applied to the digicam world makes small tiny sensors able to take and perceibe as much light as the current bigger sensors with higher ISO? that would reduce noice considerably and boost ISO capability. I know this sounds futuristic and maybe even unplausible but i remember a few years ago i didn´t even dream about an ISO 3200 for a compact camera...

[XaiLo]

cvicisso, not taking it personally at all, just seriously. To say that they are competeing technologies to reduce handshake is simply an erroneous statement. that really was the point I was trying to make. While true high ISO can help aleviate handshake it it only a by product of being able to use high ISO. What I mean is this high ISO in and of itself does nothing more than control the amount of available light in the process, that's it nothing more. It is the shutter speed that reduces motion be it hand or subject. Now with image stabilization "IS" or any of its various other names, works independently regardless of camera settings. It's sole purpose is to reduce handshake.

Heck, Fuji even markets this as some sort of image stabilization - I forgot what they call it, but they've got it as one of their 'modes' in the F30. Personally, I think this is kind of cheating on their part (after all - it's not really 'real' image stabilization - in the traditional sense), but the point is that if my logic is flawed, so too must their's be.


Now, mind you as you know this distinction is coming from a company that does not employ its own form of "IS". A heck of a lot more people read these forums than post in them and they very well could be taking things like this seriously. with all of the information out there on cameras from quote - unquote reputable sources. In this forum I can not begin to tell how many people based their decision to buy an S3 because of this section. Which speaks volumes as to how our statements effect buyers. I personally do not like marketing hype as it wastes consumer dollars. Yes, and I will dispell it at every opportunity. Like with digital zoom - sure you can zoom in closer but at what cost. Now with the Fuji F30 it does well in low light but at what cost - I find daylight pics with blown highlights to be problematic others might too. In any event there are at least two sides to every story.

[XaiLo]

Ok, i completely admit that in the current technology level you are absolutely right and that´s exactly why what i predicted for some years in the future is not commercially available in 2006, but what if some kind of future nanotechnology applied to the digicam world makes small tiny sensors able to take and perceibe as much light as the current bigger sensors with higher ISO? that would reduce noice considerably and boost ISO capability. I know this sounds futuristic and maybe even unplausible but i remember a few years ago i didn´t even dream about an ISO 3200 for a compact camera...

agreed....

[BowerR64]

Does the sony stabalization thing work the same as canons? with the little gyro and stuff?

SLRs have both high ISO and image stabalization. The camera has the sensor with the high ISO and the lens you attach has the image stabalization in it. So the big cameras have both.

I think most shoot with the IS off though

[cvicisso]

While true high ISO can help aleviate handshake it it only a by product of being able to use high ISO. What I mean is this high ISO in and of itself does nothing more than control the amount of available light in the process, that's it nothing more. It is the shutter speed that reduces motion be it hand or subject. Now with image stabilization "IS" or any of its various other names, works independently regardless of camera settings. It's sole purpose is to reduce handshake.At last we agree! :D I actually said the same thing if you drill down deep enough into my long-winded posts, but I should not have generalized my original query like that. I should have said something like "increased shutter speeds made possible by noise-free higher ISO settings" instead of just "usable high ISO." It was implied, and you and most others knew what I meant by it, but you're absolutely right - other people read these forums and make purchase decisions based on what they read here... so I should be more careful. Thanks for the feedback.

[XaiLo]

no worries man... ;)

[truflip]

soo are you getting the Fuji F30? :D :D :D