Questions about DSLR and built in stabilization

[kim]

I'm looking at upgrading---Currently, I have a Sony DSC W70.

I'm not an expert by any means, but I really enjoy taking pictures.

Some complaints with my current camera are missing the shot because it's SLOW and it's becoming more and more difficult to get a picture that is not blurry.

I've been reading about the DSLR's for the abillity to take pictures faster and have noticed that some have lenses with image stabilization or VR while I've seen references to others with it built in. Can someone give me some advise as to the type of camera that might satisfy my wants? I'm looking at a budget of approximately $500-$700 and I really don't want a lot of equipment.

Thanks for your help----I love looking at your photos.
kim

 

[ukcatfan]

You need to look over some of the reviews and also go try them out. Some might not feel good in your hands. As for the type of IS, it might come down to your budget and expected future spending. If you need to keep it low, then in body IS is the way to go b/c it works on every lens. The lenses with IS always cost more than the ones without.

I personally went with a Pentax K100D b/c it had the features I wanted while feeling good in my hand. I thought the Rebel was too small and the Nikon D50 did not offer as much for the money as the Pentax.

Kevin

 

[Groucho]

Hi Kim!

In case you weren't aware, IS (or VR or SR or whatever the manufacturer calls it) mainly helps when you're photographing something still. It helps counteract your hands shaking so that you can use a slower shutter speed and still get a sharp photo. If you're shooting something that's moving, you'll still want a faster shutter speed anyway. IS can still be some help here, but not as much. That situation is better tackled with a faster lens or by turning up the ISO level.

That being said, here's your options...
Canon and Nikon do not offer IS in the camera. They're been putting it in the lens for a while and so have an investment in having it there (though I believe that they will eventually put it in the body as well, but that's another discussion.) The newest entry-level DSLRs from both companies, the Canon XSi and the Nikon D60, both come with kit lenses that have IS. Theoretically having the IS in the lens can offer slightly better performance with longer zoom lenses (though I think that's mainly marketing speak, and what difference there is in diminishing as in-body IS is improved with every new camera), and the downside is obvious: if you want IS, you have to buy it on a per-lens basis, and usually that means buying relatively expensive lenses. Plus, many lenses simple aren't available with IS.

Sony has offered IS in all the DSLRs they've sold.

Pentax added IS with the K100D, and their current DSLRs (K200D and K20D) both have it. Of their last generation, the K110D did not have IS.

Olympus was the most recent to the IS-in-the-body bandwagon, but they still sell a couple DSLRs (E410 and E420) without IS.

I'm a big, big fan of IS in-body. It basically has zero penalties and offers improved handholding on every lens you'll ever attach to the camera. On my Pentax DSLRs, I can mount a 50-year-old lens and it will be stabilized. I also have stabilization on my fast primes (31mm and 50mm), which is not possible without IS in the body (as far as I know, nobody makes such lenses with IS in the lens.) Same for my macro lenses (55mm and 105mm) - I'm only aware of one Canon or Nikon macro lens with IS, and that's Nikon's 105mm - which costs almost $300 more than Pentax's comparable 100mm macro.

With all that being said, any DSLR will offer snappy performance and should easily satisfy your desire to take photos quickly. If IS is a priority for you, I think you really need to give the Pentax/Sony/Olympus models a close look. Otherwise, check the models from all five manufacturers and pick the one that is the best fit for your priorities. They are all very capable and worthwhile cameras.

 

[Code]

I'm a big, big fan of IS in-body. It basically has zero penalties and offers improved handholding on every lens you'll ever attach to the camera. On my Pentax DSLRs, I can mount a 50-year-old lens and it will be stabilized. I also have stabilization on my fast primes (31mm and 50mm), which is not possible without IS in the body (as far as I know, nobody makes such lenses with IS in the lens.) Same for my macro lenses (55mm and 105mm) - I'm only aware of one Canon or Nikon macro lens with IS, and that's Nikon's 105mm - which costs almost $300 more than Pentax's comparable 100mm macro.

With all that being said, any DSLR will offer snappy performance and should easily satisfy your desire to take photos quickly. If IS is a priority for you, I think you really need to give the Pentax/Sony/Olympus models a close look. Otherwise, check the models from all five manufacturers and pick the one that is the best fit for your priorities. They are all very capable and worthwhile cameras.

I very much agree with all of what Groucho said here.. I have an Olympus E-510 which has IS in-body, and I really love having it for my 30mm prime, and also particularly my 11-22.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Basically, sensor stabilization is cheaper and works more often while lens stabilization works better.

The obvious advantage of on sensor stabilization has already been mentioned - it works regardless of the lens you use. The converse, that in-lens stabilization works regardless of the body you use is of practically no value unless you still shoot film sometimes.

The primary advantage of lens stabilization is that it stabilizing the image before it enters the camera. That means that your viewfinder image is stabilized as well as your sensor image. That helps you frame, see how stable your image is, see if it is turned on and working.

Another advantage (at least for now) is that most (not all) lens stabilizers have panning modes that allow them to work while the camera is moving. Few sensor stabilizers do this. I don't find this very useful for panning (which I rarely do). Where I find it useful is when taking pictures of moving objects. With a non-panning stabilizer, you need to hold the camera still to let the stabilizer work. If you don't, the stabilizer can actually works against you by trying to fight the camera motion. With the panning mode, the camera senses motion and shuts down the different stabilizers as necessary so that it uses what it can but doesn't fight you.

The final advantage of the in-lens stabilizer is with longer lenses. The effect of camera motion is magnified along with everything else when you use a long focal length lens. An image stabilized lens corrects the effect of the motion at or near the nodal point of the lens, where much less movement of the correcting elements is needed. The sensor stabilizer has to correct the motion back where the image is fully formed. That means that the sensor stabilizers generally cannot correct as large of a shake as a lens stabilizer. How big of an issue is that? I haven't seen much testing that tries to show the real-world effects, so I can only guess.

Be very wary of claims of x-stops correction. The problem is that stops essentially measure time but the limit on a stabilizer is distance. If you bob and weave the camera around in a very small area (within the tolerance of the stabilizer), you can do so for an essentially infinite period of time. If, on the other hand, you hit the limit of the sensor, it doesn't really matter how long it took you to get there. So a person with a very good grip/shooting style might see a 4-stop gain while another person holding their camera all wobbly might see only a 1-stop gain both using the same sensor.

I have to say that with all things considered, I think that most people would be better off with a stabilized sensor today. The bang for the buck is larger compared to buying IS lenses. For less price sensitive people, the answer is not so clear.

In a way, it is something of a repeat of the in-body or in-lens focusing debate from years ago. A lot of people knocked Canon for putting the focus motors in the lens because it added cost for relatively small benefits. Now, that's the direction everyone seems to be moving because the costs of doing it have been driven way down and the benefits have increased. The same types of shifts (in either direction) may still play out in the stabilization debate.

The one thing I sometimes hear mentioned is the advantage that would be conferred in having both. Let me just say that I predict that it will be a while before you see a tandem approach used. The problem is that both types of stabilizers are correcting against their own physical motion. If they both did this in the same system, they would overcorrect and make things worse. In theory, one could correct until it hit it's limit and then hand things off to the other, but that would require additional communication and coordination that isn't (at least to my knowledge) designed into either system in use today. In other words, for that to work someone will have to design a system specifically set up for both sensor and lens stabilization.

 

[Groucho]

I agree with most of what Mark says, though I'm still not convinced 100% that in-lens is all that much more effective at long lengths, that seems to be a point made in advertising but I don't know that it's necessarily true, and others feel that way... I actually just was looking at an Olympus review over at photo.net today by Bob Atkins. Certainly it's a very pro-Canon site and Bob is a Canon user and he says in the review:

It's clear to me that for most users, in-body stabilization is more useful than in-lens stabilization, even if it's not quite so effective. I say "even if" because I have yet to see any really hard evidence that lens based stabilization is better. In fact, the test results I've seen and I've obtained myself suggest that there really isn't much difference, at least with lenses of moderate focal length.

Seeing it in the viewfinder is probably nice though obviously it doesn't affect how your photos turn out. In the Live View on my camera (and presumably other DSLRs with Live View and in-body IS), the IS is functional when using Live View and there is definitely is a big difference, which can be nice if you zoom in in order to fine-tune manual focus.

As for my comments about C/N putting it in the body eventually - just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that they'd use both. I think that what it'd do is use in-body for lenses that don't have in-lens IS, then use the in-lens when using such a lens. This should be a very trivial thing to implement.

I would suspect that one or the other will slip it into their entry-level model some day, and then it will eventually make it up the chain. Although, now that they both have IS kit lenses, that eases some of the pressure on them - but I think it would have been a lot nicer to the consumer if they'd just gone with in-body IS instead of adding to the kit lens, but now they've spent so much time claiming their system is better, it'll be trickier to justify putting it in the body. Just my humble opinion...

 

[kim]

Thanks for the great replies!

Groucho, I took your advise and went to the store and checked out several cameras including the Olympus Evolt E-510. I really like this camera. I'm learning more and more. I have now found out that I do want the "live view" because I'm used to it on my point and shoot. I had no idea that the screens on many of the slr's do not function this way. I've been reading reviews, and watching you tube for more information too.

Any other advise will also be appreciated as I'm trying to make a good decision for how I'll use the camera. I'm hesitant because I don't want to over buy a camera with features that I may never take the time to use, but there are some features I want and the point and shoots do not deliver.

I'm learning and thanks everyone for helping me with it!!
kim

 

[tazdev3225]

I just bought the new Sony DSC-H50. It has a dual image stabilizer along with several other features that my older DSC-H5 didn't have. I have only played around with it a little bit but so far I'm extremely happy with it.

 

[Groucho]

Thanks for the great replies!

Groucho, I took your advise and went to the store and checked out several cameras including the Olympus Evolt E-510. I really like this camera. I'm learning more and more. I have now found out that I do want the "live view" because I'm used to it on my point and shoot. I had no idea that the screens on many of the slr's do not function this way. I've been reading reviews, and watching you tube for more information too.

None of the DSLRs with Live View will give you the same experience as using a point-n-shoot, they're all still a little clunky and slow in Live View mode. The good news is that once you try using the viewfinder, you'll find it a far more comfortable and natural way of taking photos, it's also more stable (your hands will shake less).

 

[MarkBarbieri]

None of the DSLRs with Live View will give you the same experience as using a point-n-shoot, they're all still a little clunky and slow in Live View mode. The good news is that once you try using the viewfinder, you'll find it a far more comfortable and natural way of taking photos, it's also more stable (your hands will shake less).

I'll second that and emphasize it. DO NOT hand-hold a DSLR and take pictures using live view. Or rather, only do that when you cannot see through the viewfinder. You'll be able to hold the camera much more steadily when using the viewfinder.

I'm going through the opposite experience now, having just bought a P&S. The viewfinder on it is a joke. It's actually partially blocked by the lens much of the time. I still try to use it when my shutter speed is going to be relatively low, but it's obvious that it wasn't really designed to be used. I think it was included mainly to be able to check "Has Viewfinder" on the feature list.