 Eric Schneider |
Image Stabilization I'm looking into getting a new digital camera. I want it to be able to capture action shots such as baseball, motocross, etc. I imagine that it should shoot a couple of frames a second. I'd like it to have picture stabilization capability within the body or the lens, but I'm not sure where the stabilization is best suited. Can you educate me a little on this? So far I think I like the Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi, which retails around $899. the lens option they offer with stabilization is another 800 bucks. Should I look at something else?
|
|
|
|
||
|
robert G. Fately |
Eric, Image stabilization really pertains to the mechanical system used to keep a picture sharp if the shutter speed is too slow for handheld use. That is, if you hold the camera without using a support like a tripod and the shutter speed is slow enough (exactly how slow depends on the lens's focal length)m then your own body movement will cause some blur - IS is designed to counter that effect. But if the subject is moving, IS does nothing to help - if the shutter is not fast enough, then the subject will blur, even if the camera is on a tripod. This means that for sports shots you want to use a faster lens - that is, one that will allow in more light to enable you to use a faster shutter speed. This is why you see the pros at those sporting events using those enormous lenses - they are long focal lengths with large apertures - so-called "fast glass". So, perhaps you should look into getting a prime lens rather than a zoom. One that is faster than a zoom would be to allow you to get the fastest possible shutter speeds in a given lighting situation. Make sense?
|
|
|
|
||
- Dennis Flanagan Contact Dennis Flanagan Dennis Flanagan's Gallery |
Pentax and Sony has Image Stabilization built into the camera, whereas Nikon and Canon, you have to purchase the VR or IS lens. If money is your issue, the first two cameras' Image Stablization works with all lens attached to the camera.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
Eric, Bob's advice is sound. "IS" you should know are NOT all created equal. A true "IS" system is Gyro stabilized against inertial guidance references in the lens itself. Yep..it is more expensive, and well worth the extra money. All the best, Pete
|
|
|
|
||
- Greg McCroskery Contact Greg McCroskery Greg McCroskery's Gallery |
Eric, Image stabilization is not limited to 'in lens' technology. Several makers other than Canon and Nikon offer true 'in body' stabilization that is very effective. Olympus has a new model, the E-510, that offers true in body 'IS'. The obvious advantage to in body image stabilization is the ability to use standard lenses. God Bless, Greg
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
Greg, Angle speed sensors to "shift" the CCD is not the best way to accomplish IS or VR, whichever you prefer.
Pete
|
|
|
|
||
|
Irene Troy |
Returning to the initial question concerning IS and its use for taking fast pictures: I owned the Konica/Minolta 7D which did have IS built into the camera. I found it terrific for capturing subjects in low light or trying to use a long lens when a tripod was not possible. I now use a Canon 5D and have two IS lenses. No matter what system you ultimately select, I’ve found IS to be pretty useless when you are attempting to capture action. According to what I have read, IS was designed more to help photographers capture images in low light situations when a tripod was not practical. It is not designed to help capture action. I do a lot of wildlife photography and have found that capturing moving wildlife effectively means using a long lens and shooting at a higher shutter speed. In low light situations I use a higher ISO and play around with both shutter speed and aperture in an attempt to get as sharp an image as possible. Bottom line: if capturing action is your goal, get a fast lens. Irene
|
|
|
|
||
|
Charles E. Wright |
As for IS, I use the Pentax K100d. Its IS has saved me quit a few times. I mainly use my camera for nature photography (mainly macro). As for action shots, I havent used it alot for that and when I have, ive never shot with out IS to see if there was a major difference. Its built into the camera, as Dennis stated. The Pentax was a very cost effective way for me to go, since I didnt have to worry about the extra cost associated with lenses that have it built in. And the picture quality is right up there with Cannon and Nikon as far as im concerned (which im sure others would doubt. lol) I would take alook at the Pentax+lens kits if price is a deciding factor.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Simon A. Stone |
i work at ritz camera, I tried both the pentax and the sony both have pretty good results. but the sony has terrible lens problems, I have seen 4 or five come back with jammed or broken lenses, because the mount is wacky. I know that at ritz we have the nikon 55-200 vr macro with 2-3 stop vibration reduction for $250 you can hand hold down to 1/6 sec. whereas with sony I could only get it to 1/20 or 1/10 if I was lucky. I hope that helps
|
|
|
|
||
|
Eric Schneider |
Thanks everyone for the information. It has been very helpful with my decision. Your time and consideration are much appreciated!!! Thanks! Eric
|
|
|
|
||
|
Leisa Allen |
Eric, I just bought the XTi and love it! If you get it through BHPhoto it is $769. Also, they have some pretty good deals on IS lenses right now. Just to let you know, an IS lens is a must have with this camera as it is lighter than the 30D or 5D.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mary Ann Roesler |
Another twist on the IS lens...not all photographers are created equal...I have rhematoid arthritis and as much as I loved my light Canon G3 I found only 1 out of 10 photos were sharp enough to satisfy me. I purchased a Canon EOS 20D the new model is the 30D and 2 IS lens. Not only is it easier to hold but every photo is coming out sharp. I admit I haven't tried fast motion with it yet and assume the above comments to be true. I know there must be others with disabilities or just those "golden years" that love photography and find they can't hand hold or carry the heavy tripod. Good luck with your Canon XTi...That was my second choice. Mary Ann
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||