Difference between optical/electronic IS????

[swimm3r137]

Hi,

I'm still trying to narrow stuff down and came across this question... Which one of these is actually useful cuz IS is one my most important requirements?

[Paradox]

Optical IS is the one you're after. Electronic IS is just marketing speak for being able to use a high ISO on the camera, which on a point and shoot throws levels of noise through the roof. Let me clarify - Optical IS will stop shake from your hands in longer exposures, but can neither work miracles or freeze motion of your subject.

[swimm3r137]

what do u mean by "longer exposures"?

[swimm3r137]

I mean, for a beginner digital camera user, do you think optical IS is important? I'm only asking because at one time or another, I did consider the canon Sd750, which doesnt have IS. It looked nice and got decent reviews, but because it doesnt' have IS, I keep thinking my photos are more susceptable to be blurry. (especially cuz I'm a newbie and most likely I'll keep it in auto) Plz correct me if I'm wrong..

[TheWengler]

"Longer exposures" means an exposure with a longer shutter speed. IS is only effective to a point, then you'll need a tripod. What will you be taking pictures of? What will the lighting conditions be like?

[griptape]

A longer exposure is how long the shutter stays open so that enough light can reach the sensor (the thing behind the shutter that actually captures the image).

ISO is the same as film speed; just means how sensitive the sensor is to light. Double your ISO, and you can double your shutter speed (go from a longer exposure to a shorter one). The trouble with that is the more sensitive to light the sensor is, the more noise appears (the reason isn't that important, it's just how it is). Electronic image stabilization is just turning up that sensitivity.

Optical IS though doesn't change your ISO, or add noise. It's mechanical, not electronic. But remember that longer exposure thing? It allows you to have a longer exposure by stopping the slight movement of you behind the camera, but anything moving in FRONT of the camera (kids, pets, anything not stationary) will be blurrier, because it will be captured longer. It would be like a camcorder if you laid the frames on top of each other instead of advancing to the next frame.

Is it that important to have? Only if you do a reasonable amount of shooting in places with not much light and the thing your taking the picture of isn't moving.

Also worth mentioning... if you don't mind using the flash, you won't get blurry pictures anyway.

[Beowulff]

One other consideration is whether your optical image stabilisation is a lens-mounted system whereby one of the lens elements is physically moved, or a sensor-shift system where the CCD is moved.

If you have the CCD-shift type IS, it obviates the need to have stabilised lenses — for example Canon lenses have IS, which makes them both slightly more bulky, and more expensive, but Pentax uses the CCD-shift type IS, which means you can use 50-year-old Pentax lenses and still have all the benefits (2 to 3 stops) of IS.

I really don't think it matters which system is used in a P&S camera, but my personal preference would be for a CCD-shift IS in a dSLR.

Cheers :)