Connie |
|
Does Anti Shake really make a difference
Hi, We're planning on buying a digital camera. We're not sure if we want the Kodak DX 6490 or Konica Minolta Dimage Z2 ( or Z3- if it's also in about the same price range ). I currently have a Minolta SLR, but we've decided to go digital for quick and ease of e-mailing and working with pictures of our garden and dogs. I'd like to learn how to use the camera more effectively, right now I'm just a point and shot kinda girl, so it's no problem that the Z2 has more manual functions. Also for vacation the zoom was a necessary requirement. My major confusion is on this Anti Shake stuff... am I wrong in thinking that my film camera really doesn't have much in the way of Anti Shake precautions so why should I care if my digital has it, as long as I try to compensate with a tripod or stabilizing during the picture taking. Or...can you tell me which of the two comes closer to the "Anti Shake" ( I know neither has really an Anti Shake as the Minolta A1, but they do have fast focus capabilities ) of a film SLR? And of course just your opinions about which of the two are better would always be appreciated.
July 09, 2004
|
|
|
Wing Wong |
|
Hi Connie, I use the Minolta A1, which has the anti-shake on the sensor. Well, it only really matters in situations where there is low light or you are dealing with long focal lengths which reduces the amount of light getting into your camera. It gives you a little more stability. Naturally, if you are using a tripod, then anti-shake or image-stabilization will not be as much help to you. The Minolta Anti-Shake for the A1, A2, and their digital SLR... don't know the model number, makes it so that the image sensor is shifted in accordance with movements in the camera body. Much like some camcorders. This makes it so that if the camera body moves, the sensor moves in response to keep the image and exposure in the same location. In the film world where Image Stabilization happens in the lens, the lens are literally floating elements which respond like finely tuned shocks that shifts lens elements to compensate for the movement of the camera and lens. There is also digital image stabilization which is the detection of movement by the camera and cutting off parts of the image and resampling the image to the right size to compensate for movement. This results in degredation, but is used quite often in camcorders. Why does it matter? Well, it matters when you are taking pictures where you need a slightly longer exposure due to light, effect, or because of some other factor. The motion compensation in the lens, body, or software helps to ensure that you don't get motion blur. Naturally, if you are adept at the use of your camera and practice good photography, you will be able to take solid pictures regardless. ;) I'm weak in the arms and so shake regardless I'm braced against something or now. If you shoot long(300mm+), then AS/IS helps alot to keep from getting blurred images. It also helps when you start to use teleconvertors since those cut down on light and increases the focal length at the same time. Personally, I think Optical Stabilization in-lens is better. But Minolta's idea of stabilizing the sensor is good because it makes all lenses stabilized... to varying degrees. The in-lens units are tuned for the lens whereas the AS in a Minota is only tuned for the existing setup or, with firmware updates, for 1.5x teleconverters and 0.85x wide angle converters. Wing. Wing
July 09, 2004
|
|
|
Peter K. Burian |
|
Connie: I tested the Dimage A2 with anti-shake and it was a very effective system. I would certainly seriously consider a camera with that system. Unless you often use a tripod. It significantly helps produce sharper photos at longer shutter speeds, so you do not often need to use a high ISO setting. Shoot at ISO 100 for the best quality and the stabilizer will help produce sharper images. Cheers! Peter Burian
July 09, 2004
|
|
|
Connie |
|
Hi Wing, Thanks for the fast response. I guess I was wrong about the film SLR not having internal stabilization. I also do shake alot and get lots of warnings with my SLR, but it never seems to go away unless I stabalize or use a tripod. So I was thinking there wasn't really anything on the camera to help me, and I was on my own. I've read lots of reviews on these two camera's and what has me confused is that in one review they say the Z2 really needs a tripod at the telephoto range. While the Kodak review says it's possible to hand hold the camera even low light conditions. There's no difference between the two except that the Z2's lens is not stabalized, otherwise the aperture rates are identical. So, I'm not sure if this should be a deciding factor between the two or not. It's very difficult deciding which camera to buy. Thanks again for your information.
July 09, 2004
|
|
|
Connie |
|
Thanks Peter. I do hope the Z3 is than in our price range, cause niether of these two cameras have the anti shake. I guess we're back to the drawing board. Connie
July 09, 2004
|
|
|
K . Alderete |
|
Hi Connie. I was reading your questions about the Anti Shake. I own a DiMage A2 with the Anti Shake and I absolutely love it! And being that the camera is an 8 MP, the pics I have been able to take far exceed my expectations. I have instances that, when taking hand held shots, without the Anti Shake on, the pics would not have come out as well.
July 10, 2004
|
|
|
Peggy Wolff |
|
The August addition to popular photography just had a great artical about this. I know you can find it on line, I just don't know the link off hand.
July 15, 2004
|
|
|
Connie |
|
Hi, Thanks everyone for the great info. We've decided to go with the Kodak DX6490. We tested this against the Z2 and the Kodak focased at full zoom right away and the Z2 not. Also, I'm not sure, but the zoom distance seems farther and crisper in the Kodak than the Z2. I know I won't be able to manually zoom, but I don't do that too much with my SLR now, and the white balance isn't as advanced, but hey...I don't even know what a white balance is yet, so I don't think I'll miss the options much. And I'll just have to get used to using a tripod. Thanks again for all the information and help. Connie
July 15, 2004
|
|
|
Betsy Morrow |
|
|
|
|
|
US Capital Dome
No Flash, Auto Focus, No Tripod, focal length 11mm
Betsy Morrow
|
|
|
|
White House
No adjustments made just resized for the web site. No tripod, focal lengh 63mm. I think the optic zoom was all the way out on this one. Taken from the Jefferson Memorial.
Betsy Morrow
|
|
|
|
Hi Connie,
I have a Kodak DX6490. Some things about it are good and some not so good. It has a tendency to over expose on outdoor shots. I just got a lens adapter for it and some lenses; Circular Polarizing, UV, Wide angle, and 8 point star. Learn to use the Exposure Compensator. I took some good shots in the US Capital using the 10X optic zoom of the picture in to top of the doom that I was really impressed with and some pictures of the White house from the Jefferson Memorial that I was really pleased with how close I got. I have another Kodak digital a DC290 that I think is a better point and shot for outdoor shots in bright light. I get a lot of out of focus shots with the DX6490, I’m not really sure how much is the camera and how much is me. I really just learning about photography so I’m sure I’ll think it’s a better camera when I get better with it. I’m learning I really have to take my time and pay attention to how well it is focusing. Some things are better if I just us the video feature. I LOVE that part.
July 19, 2004
|
|
|
Connie |
|
Thanks Betsy for that information it's very helpful. We were looking at the Minolta Z2 also. We had both of them out in the shop and in a second or so I had focused with the Kodak and the Minolta still hadn't. I found the focus to be really sharp and that decided it for us. I'll have to work hard too, cause I'm very much a learner and I want to figure out apetures and shutter speeds some day. But I love the flexibility of saying, not to day...on auto. So thanks again and if I take good pictures ( after we get it, that it) I'll upload them and we can compare. Take care,
Connie
July 19, 2004
|
|
|
|
Log in to respond or ask your own question.
|
