How important is Image Stabilization?

[Seafood]

So after weeks and weeks of research and reading I have finally surrendered to the fact that I just cant spend the $ on a DSLR. I have am almost 99% set on buying a Fuji S6000. From all that I read this is a great camera that does most everything very well. It is well built, feels like good solid construction, has some great features, and appears to take great pics.

What is my hangup? It doesnt have Image Stabilization. I am by no means a pro photographer...but for those of you on here that have more experience than I do...please help me understand this IS issue.

From what I read, the lack of IS only affects the pictures that are taken with the zoom all the way out.

Question 1. - Is this correct? Question 2 - Why buy a camera with a great zoom lens if you cant use it? Question 3 -Does the RAW setting allow the user to overcome no IS and get good shots at full zoom.

Lastly...for how many of you is the IS a deal breaker?

thanks a ton

[Norm in Fujino]

Photographers have been shooting for 150 years without image stabilization, and while it is nice to have, it shouldn't be a deal-breaker for any but very specialized purposes. It will give you an extra f-stop or two, but particularly if you're young, you should learn to hold your camera stably anyway. That's a basic given. I also have a 10x ultrazoom, and when it was my main camera I actually didn't use the 10x power that much anyway (YMMV)--and when I did I learned to use a tripod, which you'll probably need anyway for best results with any lens that long. Buy your camera on the basis of other features, and consider IS a bit of gravy if it's present.

[John_Reed]

So after weeks and weeks of research and reading I have finally surrendered to the fact that I just cant spend the $ on a DSLR. I have am almost 99% set on buying a Fuji S6000. From all that I read this is a great camera that does most everything very well. It is well built, feels like good solid construction, has some great features, and appears to take great pics.

What is my hangup? It doesnt have Image Stabilization. I am by no means a pro photographer...but for those of you on here that have more experience than I do...please help me understand this IS issue.

From what I read, the lack of IS only affects the pictures that are taken with the zoom all the way out.

Question 1. - Is this correct? Question 2 - Why buy a camera with a great zoom lens if you cant use it? Question 3 -Does the RAW setting allow the user to overcome no IS and get good shots at full zoom.

Lastly...for how many of you is the IS a deal breaker?

thanks a tonIS has become a standard feature of all of Panasonic's cameras, including those with short zooms limited to ~100mm reach, and others are beginning to follow suit as well. If you're young and naturally very steady-handed, maybe it'll make no difference for you. But I can tell you from personal experience (and I'm NOT young) from an extensive trial I gave a friend's Fuji F11, I couldn't hold it steady enough to shoot at anything slower than 1/40 of a second, even at its shortest focal length. Meanwhile, I was routinely clicking off sharp shots with my stabilized Panasonic FX50 at 1/10 second or even slower. For me, that's a good two f-stops of benefit.

Yes, high ISO is beneficial for helping to make up the difference, and yes, it captures motion better than slower lower-ISO photos, but the difference needs to be pointed out.

[coldrain]

IS is all about camera shake.
What is camera shake? It is you unable to hold the camera totally still during the exposure time of a photo. The optical axis of the camera/lens shifting a little bit during exposure can show up as blur in the photograph.

The longer an exposure time takes, the more camera shake induced blur can occur in the photo.
The more tele a lens is, the more a tiny shift of the optical axis shows up on the photo, because tele lenses "magnify" not only the subjet, but also magnify the movement of the optical axis over the subject, so camera shake shows up much quicker than with wider angle lenses. This is the reason IS is more benificial in tele lens focal ranges.

The rule of thumb is: If the lens is for instance at 200mm (35mm film focal length equivalent), the minimum shutterspeed you should consider would be 1/200th of a second. Longer, and you risk camera shake blur too much. For 50mm it would be 1/50th of a second, for 35mm 1/35th, for 400mm 1/400th of a second.

So, IS becomes a help when you go below the rule of thumb shutterspeed of a certain focal length. If you have too long shutter speeds, and a moving subject, you will have a blurry subject from the suject's own movement.
So when you use IS in tele ranges, IS always can be benificial, even with moving subjects. If you use it in shorter focal lengths, it will be more benificial for static subjects, otherwise you will risk subject movement blur.

IS is just a help, sometimes valuable. You can of course make great photos without it too.

[lucav]

Have a look here

http://www.photoxels.com/article-image-stabilization.html


it's a rather basic article on stabilization and ISO issues.

Bye,
Luca

[LR Max]

Image stabilization is very important.

I refuse to buy a new non-DSLR that doesn't have it. I won't recommend a camera that doesn't have it.

The lenses I use with my DSLR are either fast (1.4~2.8) or have VR (nikon version of IS).

[Rhys]

IS can be good but for static subjects only. Pentax has a new twist (literally) on IS in their K10 DSLR. Their sensor not only compensates for up-down, left-right motion but now also for twisting motion. I'd like to see Canon etc try to beat that with in-lens IS.

I foresee all cameras having in-body IS as opposed to in-lens IS fairly soon. Canon's having a go with dust removal.