Does Optical Image Stabilization mke a significant difference?

[Aegis]

I'm trying to decide which camera to buy (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31555), and the crux of my decision lies in the fact that one has Image stabilization and the other doesn't.

I'm hoping the more experienced members could give me some advice. Does it really make the difference when taking pictures?

[John_Reed]

I'm trying to decide which camera to buy (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31555), and the crux of my decision lies in the fact that one has Image stabilization and the other doesn't.

I'm hoping the more experienced members could give me some advice. Does it really make the difference when taking pictures?Optical image stabilization can improve low-end shutterspeed performance by at least two f-stops, when compared to a non-optically stabilized camera under the same lighting conditions. The OIS controls only shooter motion, NOT subject motion, it must be remembered. But if you were able to shoot the non-OIS camera at, let's say, 1/125 of a second under certain lighting, you'd be able to shoot the same shot to the same degree of sharpness at 1/30 of a second with the OIS camera.

If you're young and very steady, you may not see a benefit from OIS, except at long focal lengths. On the other hand, an old and shaky guy like me (67) absolutely DEPENDS on it to get by, as I HATE to carry tripods around.

Don't let the decision tear you up, though; pick the one you like best, and buy it from a vendor who has a good return policy, just in case you made the wrong choice! Life's too short to agonize over inanimate objects.;)

[Rhys]

I'm trying to decide which camera to buy (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31555), and the crux of my decision lies in the fact that one has Image stabilization and the other doesn't.

I'm hoping the more experienced members could give me some advice. Does it really make the difference when taking pictures?

It makes a big difference at lower shutter speeds. I will not buy any lenses now without built-in image stabilisation.

[Gregg Greenwood]

I will not buy any lenses now without built-in image stabilisation.

And that's the great thing about having IS built into the camera. Then every lens you buy takes advantage of the feature. You don't have to pay for the extra equipment in each lens. You don't have to discover that it isn't available at all in some of the lenses you want to buy. And older lenses that you picked up on ebay are stabilized as well.

Obviously it matters the most with long focal lengths or when trying to use longer shutter speeds for something like indoor available light photos.

I don't think there is any dispute that it is desirable. It's just not available in many of the cameras "at the top."

I mean, honest question here: you are prepared to buy your dream camera, Brand X and Model 1000. If you could buy the XM1000 for $800 without IS and the exact same camera with IS for $850, how many would buy the $800 one?

When I'm comparing DSLR's and trying to decide which one to buy, the "absence of IS" in many of the otherwise most desirable cameras makes the decision more difficult!

Gregg

[John_Reed]

I've heard that Nikon VR lenses and Canon IS lenses have pretty effective in-lens anti-shake mechanisms. Yes, you'd think that having anti-shake in the body would be a boon, but over on dpreview they measured "quantitatively" the improvement they say on the Pentax K10D, and it only looked like ~1 f-stop. Other cameras also have AS in body, like the Sony A100, the new Olympus E-510, and supposedly Panasonic is working on an "in body" system, presumably a near relative to the E-510, since they're sort of working jointly in the 4/3 arena. I'm watching these developments closely, myself. I know that I NEED anti-shake, and won't have a camera/lens system without it, at any focal length.

One reason why comparing AS systems is difficult, I think, is that different individuals may require different systems for optimum anti-shake, depending on just how they happen to shake when they're shooting.

[SpecialK]

I'm trying to decide which camera to buy (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31555), and the crux of my decision lies in the fact that one has Image stabilization and the other doesn't.

I'm hoping the more experienced members could give me some advice. Does it really make the difference when taking pictures?

Yes, unless your camera is on a tripod in which case you turn off IS.

[RichNY]

I'm trying to decide which camera to buy (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31555), and the crux of my decision lies in the fact that one has Image stabilization and the other doesn't.

I'm hoping the more experienced members could give me some advice. Does it really make the difference when taking pictures?

I read your other post; if you could swing the Canon S3IS you'd really be pleased. Might be worth waiting another month to save for the small amount above budget considering how long you'll have the camera.

[kenlc3]

I just bought a sony alpha and the Image Stabilization works super!! I was shooting some shots at dusk and I thought I had to stop shooting because my shutter speed was so slow. The photo's came out great!! No flash. Now I have to go back and do some testing because I didn't pay attention to just what the shutter speed was. I was going by my old film slr settings. Down around 60 but I know a couple of them were down around 10. I couldn't beleve it myself!! I will test it though.

I love my sony

Ken

[DonSchap]

Look, I don't know what kind of in-depth research people are doing, but almost every single Canon or Nikon PRIME lens (fixed focal length) does not come with IS in it.

Until you hit the (Canon) 300mm f/2.8L range and higher in PRIME glass ... you had better have a tripod ... unless you have the SONY A100 or the Pentax K10D/K100D.

There is a lot of good non-IS glass out there ... and you are ignoring it and spending a ton of extra-coin, if you do not plan on using anything other IS-equipped glass.

For me, the decision was easy ... IS in the body ... then all your glass has it ... PRIMES included!

I suppose if you were running the ULTIMATE LENS ... it wouldn't make much difference.


http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r289/donschap/ef17-300_18-28lisu_586x225copy.jpg
EF 17-300mm f/1.8-2.8 DO IS USM


BTW: You don't even want to know what happens to internal lens elements when they go from 17 to 300mm ... LOL :D

[SpecialK]

I just bought a sony alpha and the Image Stabilization works super!! I was shooting some shots at dusk and I thought I had to stop shooting because my shutter speed was so slow. The photo's came out great!! No flash. Now I have to go back and do some testing because I didn't pay attention to just what the shutter speed was. I was going by my old film slr settings. Down around 60 but I know a couple of them were down around 10. I couldn't beleve it myself!! I will test it though.

I love my sony

Ken

If you got any kind of photo editor software with your camera or even after the fact, it will be able to read the image "EXIF" data that is saved with the image and contains all the settings info.