Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Low-light digital camera?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 12:39:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I was camping with friends over the Thanksgiving weekend, and one of them
had an Olympus C-2100 which he was using to shoot photos without flash --
the light of the campfire was sufficient. My wife took some photos at my
request with her Digital Rebel, and she couldn't hand hold the camera at
whatever the settings were, so the images were blurred badly.

Having a low-light digital would come in very handy at Burning Man and
other similar events, and the C-2100 appears to be discontinued. The owner
of the camera said it was the huge lens that made it possible, but as I
recall, it was only a 2.8. Any clues on whether it's the fast lens, the
small number of pixels of larger size, or image stabilization?

Anyone know of other cameras with similar low-light capabilities? (Note: a
D70 with an appropriate lens would not be a consideration, if it is the
lens that was the key.)
--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email to philip@
http://www.cieux.com/ | my domain is read daily.
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 3:23:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Phil Stripling wrote:

> I was camping with friends over the Thanksgiving weekend, and one of them
> had an Olympus C-2100 which he was using to shoot photos without flash --
> the light of the campfire was sufficient. My wife took some photos at my
> request with her Digital Rebel, and she couldn't hand hold the camera at
> whatever the settings were, so the images were blurred badly.
>
> Having a low-light digital would come in very handy at Burning Man and
> other similar events, and the C-2100 appears to be discontinued. The owner
> of the camera said it was the huge lens that made it possible, but as I
> recall, it was only a 2.8. Any clues on whether it's the fast lens, the
> small number of pixels of larger size, or image stabilization?
>
> Anyone know of other cameras with similar low-light capabilities? (Note: a
> D70 with an appropriate lens would not be a consideration, if it is the
> lens that was the key.)

What lens did you have on your DRebel ?

The lens is probably one of the most important aspects of low
light photography.. After all.. It's what lets in the light.
They all don't have the same size openings and as a result,
they can't let in the same amount of light.

If you plugged a Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens on your Drebel and set
the ISO to 800 and used aperture priority to open the lens
wide... You'd drastically outperform the C-2100 in low
light.

You don't need a new camera.. Just learn how to use what
you've got :-)
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 3:40:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jim Townsend <not@real.address> writes:

> What lens did you have on your DRebel ?

Louise has whatever came with the standard kit. I'm sorry to say I have no
clue what it is. The zoom lens is all I know.

>SNIP<
> If you plugged a Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens on your Drebel and set
> the ISO to 800 and used aperture priority to open the lens
> wide... You'd drastically outperform the C-2100 in low
> light.

Louise generally uses manual in low light situations, but she also uses a
tripod, so maybe a 50mm 1.4 would be something for her to consider.

>
> You don't need a new camera.. Just learn how to use what
> you've got :-)

Always good advice, although it means we don't get to buy new toys so it's
often forgotten.

--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email to philip@
http://www.cieux.com/ | my domain is read daily.
Related resources
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 4:47:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 01 Dec 2004 09:39:07 -0800, Phil Stripling
<phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote:

>I was camping with friends over the Thanksgiving weekend, and one of them
>had an Olympus C-2100 which he was using to shoot photos without flash --
>the light of the campfire was sufficient. My wife took some photos at my
>request with her Digital Rebel, and she couldn't hand hold the camera at
>whatever the settings were, so the images were blurred badly.
>
>Having a low-light digital would come in very handy at Burning Man and
>other similar events, and the C-2100 appears to be discontinued. The owner
>of the camera said it was the huge lens that made it possible, but as I
>recall, it was only a 2.8. Any clues on whether it's the fast lens, the
>small number of pixels of larger size, or image stabilization?
>
>Anyone know of other cameras with similar low-light capabilities? (Note: a
>D70 with an appropriate lens would not be a consideration, if it is the
>lens that was the key.)

Did your wife try setting the ISO higher than the default 100?

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 4:47:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> writes:

> Did your wife try setting the ISO higher than the default 100?

She said she set it to 400.
--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email to philip@
http://www.cieux.com/ | my domain is read daily.
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 6:06:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Phil Stripling <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> writes:

> I was camping with friends over the Thanksgiving weekend, and one of them
> had an Olympus C-2100 which he was using to shoot photos without flash --
> the light of the campfire was sufficient. My wife took some photos at my
> request with her Digital Rebel, and she couldn't hand hold the camera at
> whatever the settings were, so the images were blurred badly.
>
> Having a low-light digital would come in very handy at Burning Man and
> other similar events, and the C-2100 appears to be discontinued. The owner
> of the camera said it was the huge lens that made it possible, but as I
> recall, it was only a 2.8. Any clues on whether it's the fast lens, the
> small number of pixels of larger size, or image stabilization?
>
> Anyone know of other cameras with similar low-light capabilities? (Note: a
> D70 with an appropriate lens would not be a consideration, if it is the
> lens that was the key.)

It is a combination of image stabalization, low noise, relatively fast (f/2.8)
lens that made the C-2100UZ a unique camera. I still can't replace everything
it does for me in one camera and one lens today. Also, you do have to wait for
a point where people aren't moving too much. I've taken hand held pictures of
non-moving items up to 1/2 second with C-2100UZ, and 1/10 for people (and some
of the shots had blurred hands if you look closely). Compared to other
prosumer cameras it had a relatively large sensor size, so the noise was less
(but presumably the noise for the same ISO is even less on your rebel).

In theory, if you put a 28-135IS lens on your rebel, it should give you image
stabalization (or use a tripod/monopod), though you effectively lose an f/stop
since it is a slower lens (and given it is a consumer lens, it might be soft
wide open, which means losing even more stops of light). Note that in a DSLR,
the depth of field is much smaller than on a prosumer camera like the C-2100UZ,
so things may not be in focus like they would be if you use f/3.5 on both
cameras.

The closest current prosumer camera to the C-2100UZ is the Panasonic FZ20, but
note it has a much smaller sensor and more aggressive JPG, so noise at ISO 400
should be higher (but you can clean it up). I suspect the electronic
viewfinder is also not as bright in really dim light.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 7:05:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Phil Stripling wrote:

> Jim Townsend <not@real.address> writes:

>>
>> You don't need a new camera.. Just learn how to use what
>> you've got :-)
>
> Always good advice, although it means we don't get to buy new toys so it's
> often forgotten.

LOL.. Yes, toys are fun :-)

Actually you might want to get her a 20D for Christmas.. It
takes the DRebel kit lens and apparently does a very good
job at ISO 1600.
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 7:08:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Phil Stripling <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> writes:

> Jim Townsend <not@real.address> writes:
>
> > What lens did you have on your DRebel ?
>
> Louise has whatever came with the standard kit. I'm sorry to say I have no
> clue what it is. The zoom lens is all I know.

The Canon digital rebel kit lens is f/3.5 - f/5.6, which is 2/3 - 1 1/3 f/stops
slower than the C-2100UZ's f/2.8 - f/3.5 lens. Note that the C-2100UZ lens
tended to stay in f/2.8 for a good part of the zoom range. In case you don't
know what I mean by f/stops, the full f/stops are f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8,
etc. so if a lens a full f/stop slower than another lens, you have to halve the
shutter speed or double the ISO to take pictures in the same light. This means
if the C-2100UZ for example was shooting at 1/10 second, f/2.8, at ISO 400, you
might need to shoot at 1/10 second f/4, at ISO 800 or 1/20 second, f/4, ISO
1600 to get the same exposure.


> >SNIP<
> > If you plugged a Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens on your Drebel and set
> > the ISO to 800 and used aperture priority to open the lens
> > wide... You'd drastically outperform the C-2100 in low
> > light.

Depends on the depth of field. The UZI's f/2.8 aperture probably gives the
same as f/5.6 or f/8 on the digital rebel. Sometimes you want a large depth of
field, sometimes you don't. Of course you need to stabalize that f/1.4 lens if
you are shooting at low speeds.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 9:39:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Phil Stripling wrote:

> I was camping with friends over the Thanksgiving weekend, and one of them
> had an Olympus C-2100 which he was using to shoot photos without flash --
> the light of the campfire was sufficient. My wife took some photos at my
> request with her Digital Rebel, and she couldn't hand hold the camera at
> whatever the settings were, so the images were blurred badly.
>
> Having a low-light digital would come in very handy at Burning Man and
> other similar events, and the C-2100 appears to be discontinued. The owner
> of the camera said it was the huge lens that made it possible, but as I
> recall, it was only a 2.8. Any clues on whether it's the fast lens, the
> small number of pixels of larger size, or image stabilization?

All of the above. You can sometimes do a bit better using the video mode
of a digicam and then average a few frames with registax or similar.
>
> Anyone know of other cameras with similar low-light capabilities? (Note: a
> D70 with an appropriate lens would not be a consideration, if it is the
> lens that was the key.)

The faster the lens the better for available light work. A tripod helps.

Regards,
Martin Brown
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 9:50:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 01 Dec 2004 13:32:48 -0800, Phil Stripling
<phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote:

>Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> writes:
>
>> Did your wife try setting the ISO higher than the default 100?
>
>She said she set it to 400.

I see that from a later post's link.
The DR can be used very well at 800 with very little noise, so she
might want to try that. Even 1600 is usable, but with more noise.
That's not possible with the 2100.
As others have pointed out, the DR's kit lens (evidently the one used
here) isn't as fast as the 2100, so more time/higher ISO is needed.
The DR isn't, in my experience, a good low light performer with the
kit lens, without a tripod.

But that pic of the desert can be fixed somewhat;
http://pippina.us/misc/12048040-l-1.jpg
But the hills have some real bad blockiness. A little more exposure
would have helped there, I think.
Keep practicing with the DL; I really like mine.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 11:04:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Fast lens (f/2.8 or faster) is good...

image stabilization is good...

I'd go for a Digital Rebel with 50/1.4 lens, actually, or an
image-stabilized zoom that is about f/4.

Or a tripod!
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 11:07:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

By the way, the 50/1.8 lens for the Digital Rebel is very cheap ($75 New
York) and gives you (5.6/1.8)^2 = 9.7 times as much light as the original
"kit" lens at 50mm. That's like going from ISO 400 to 4000.

If 50mm is too long, they also make a 35/2 that would be a fine "normal"
lens.

*chuckle* This younger generation hasn't experienced available-light
photography with a 50/1.8 lens... used to be the normal way to take
pictures, with Tri-X Pan and Acufine (pushing to 1600)... you could
photograph anything you could see. Photographing stars in the sky by such
methods was what got me started in astrophotography.


--
Clear skies,

Michael A. Covington
Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 12:00:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Phil Stripling" <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote in message
news:3qhdn5ex50.fsf@shell4.tdl.com...
> I was camping with friends over the Thanksgiving weekend, and one of them
> had an Olympus C-2100 which he was using to shoot photos without flash --
> the light of the campfire was sufficient. My wife took some photos at my
> request with her Digital Rebel, and she couldn't hand hold the camera at
> whatever the settings were, so the images were blurred badly.
>
> Having a low-light digital would come in very handy at Burning Man and
> other similar events, and the C-2100 appears to be discontinued. The owner
> of the camera said it was the huge lens that made it possible, but as I
> recall, it was only a 2.8. Any clues on whether it's the fast lens, the
> small number of pixels of larger size, or image stabilization?
>
> Anyone know of other cameras with similar low-light capabilities? (Note: a
> D70 with an appropriate lens would not be a consideration, if it is the
> lens that was the key.)

first off: i used to have a c-2100uz and it was just a great cam for the
time and still is. for 2mp it really created outstanding images. you should
still be ale to find some pieces on ebay for around 300 bucks - which i
think it's still worth (i am not sure about its successors - might be worth
checking that out).

i now have a d70 - and agree with the others that the lens is probably a
really important (and pricey) issue with low-light photography. personally
i - so far - only had problems when using it at a night soccer game that was
artificially lit - but still it didnt cut it. but then again, i have lenses
from the more affordable end of the scale, and these kinda action shots
would probably require more sophisticated lenses. other than that i only use
it in low-light when i am out for night-photography - which i really enjoy a
lot - but we are talking 5-10 seconds exposure and up here - so it really
has nothing to do with you initial question anymore. ;-)

take it easy!
sid
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 12:00:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"sid derra" <ng_NO_@_SPAM_emolife.net> writes:

>SNIP<
> would probably require more sophisticated lenses. other than that i only use
> it in low-light when i am out for night-photography - which i really enjoy a
> lot - but we are talking 5-10 seconds exposure and up here - so it really
> has nothing to do with you initial question anymore. ;-)

Louise has a 10-second exposure with the Digital Rebel at
http://civex.smugmug.com/gallery/303160/3/12048040
where it looks like the sun is glaring just out of the frame, and it's the
moon. :->

A failed campfire attempt is at
http://civex.smugmug.com/gallery/303160/5/12048422
and a really nice 15-second exposure at
http://civex.smugmug.com/gallery/303160/5/12048422

The night-time photos were taken after 7:00 pm; in Eureka Valley at
Thanksgiving, the sun sets at 4:10, and it's pitch black by 5:00. No
electric lights in the valley, and it's surrounded by mountains. Use the
navigation links to see other photos, if you're interested.

--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email to philip@
http://www.cieux.com/ | my domain is read daily.
December 2, 2004 1:47:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Phil Stripling" <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote in message
news:3qhdn5ex50.fsf@shell4.tdl.com...
> I was camping with friends over the Thanksgiving weekend, and one of them
> had an Olympus C-2100 which he was using to shoot photos without flash --
> the light of the campfire was sufficient. My wife took some photos at my
> request with her Digital Rebel, and she couldn't hand hold the camera at
> whatever the settings were, so the images were blurred badly.
>
Use a tripod. Large cameras like the Rebel are harder to hold than small
ones like the Olympus.
It would help to set the Rebel to use shutter priority, the highest ISO, and
the largest stop.

She should surely be able to obtain good photos with what you already have.
Jim
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 5:17:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Phil Stripling" <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote in message
news:3qoehdoicl.fsf@shell4.tdl.com...
> "sid derra" <ng_NO_@_SPAM_emolife.net> writes:
>
> Louise has a 10-second exposure with the Digital Rebel at
> http://civex.smugmug.com/gallery/303160/3/12048040
> where it looks like the sun is glaring just out of the frame, and it's the
> moon. :->

<sarcasm> thats just cos its a canon </sarcasm> ;-)
no really, i started at 10 sec too with the moon and eventually ended up at
0.4 sec (at 2 am in october in austria. very little artificial light
around.):
http://www.emolife.net/photos/displayimage.php?album=31...

more night shots that i took recently you can find here:
http://www.emolife.net/photos/thumbnails.php?album=31 (the database is super
lame at the moment - i hope it has speds up by the time you check it)

> A failed campfire attempt is at
> http://civex.smugmug.com/gallery/303160/5/12048422
> and a really nice 15-second exposure at
> http://civex.smugmug.com/gallery/303160/5/12048422

that is unfortunately the same link ;-)

sid
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 5:25:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"sid derra" <ng_NO_@_SPAM_emolife.net> wrote in message
news:3178opF3817unU1@individual.net...
> "Phil Stripling" <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote in message
> news:3qoehdoicl.fsf@shell4.tdl.com...
> > "sid derra" <ng_NO_@_SPAM_emolife.net> writes:
> >
> > Louise has a 10-second exposure with the Digital Rebel at
> > http://civex.smugmug.com/gallery/303160/3/12048040
> > where it looks like the sun is glaring just out of the frame, and it's
the
> > moon. :->
>
> <sarcasm> thats just cos its a canon </sarcasm> ;-)
> no really, i started at 10 sec too with the moon and eventually ended up
at
> 0.4 sec (at 2 am in october in austria. very little artificial light
> around.):
> http://www.emolife.net/photos/displayimage.php?album=31...
>
> more night shots that i took recently you can find here:
> http://www.emolife.net/photos/thumbnails.php?album=31 (the database is
super
> lame at the moment - i hope it has speds up by the time you check it)

forgot this from a few nights ago (12 photos stitched together - a little
bit noisy unfortunately):
http://tinyurl.com/5w746
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 7:24:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Phil Stripling <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote in
news:3qhdn5ex50.fsf@shell4.tdl.com:

> I was camping with friends over the Thanksgiving weekend, and one of
> them had an Olympus C-2100 which he was using to shoot photos without
> flash -- the light of the campfire was sufficient. My wife took some
> photos at my request with her Digital Rebel, and she couldn't hand
> hold the camera at whatever the settings were, so the images were
> blurred badly.
>
> Having a low-light digital would come in very handy at Burning Man and
> other similar events,

It does indeed, especially action displays like fire performance (poi,
swords, staff, breathing).

<snip>

> Anyone know of other cameras with similar low-light capabilities?

I've shot some interesting stuff with a 10D, but I've been forced to use
flash with action shots, dragging the lens pretty heavily. This actually
can result in some wonderful stuff, the flash catching a nice image of
the perform(ers) and the slurring just adding to the action feel.

http://www.spytfire.com/

The faster the glass, the easier the shot. The 50mm f/1.8 is probably
your most affordable option. You can get all the way down to f/1.2, which
is an entirely different class than even f/1.8, but the cost jumps from
$70US or so all the way to $1,100(!)

Truth is, though, I've done lots better with the 20D, with it's lovely
high-ISO modes.

At any rate, learn to love a tripod.

> (Note: a D70 with an appropriate lens would not be a consideration, if
> it is the lens that was the key.)
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 7:24:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> I've shot some interesting stuff with a 10D, but I've been forced to use
> flash with action shots, dragging the lens pretty heavily. This actually
> can result in some wonderful stuff, the flash catching a nice image of
> the perform(ers) and the slurring just adding to the action feel.
>
> http://www.spytfire.com/

Nice photos! Come to burning man and get the fire spinners there, okay?
--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email to philip@
http://www.cieux.com/ | my domain is read daily.
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 6:18:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Phil Stripling <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote in
news:3qr7m9mhnk.fsf@shell4.tdl.com:

>> I've shot some interesting stuff with a 10D, but I've been forced to use
>> flash with action shots, dragging the lens pretty heavily. This actually
>> can result in some wonderful stuff, the flash catching a nice image of
>> the perform(ers) and the slurring just adding to the action feel.
>>
>> http://www.spytfire.com/
>
> Nice photos!

Thanks, Phil.

I just realized the stuff from the Witches Ball was shot with the 50 f/1.8
I mentioned, it being the only lens I had at the time. Amazingly good lens
for basically lunch-money on the SLR equipment scale.

> Come to burning man and get the fire spinners there, okay?

I'd love to. Last time I was at the Big Burn (97?), I wasn't doing the
photography thing.

Alas, my opportunity for travel is severely curtailed these days, though I
do make local mini-burns like Austin's Flipside.

Pass along my appreciation for your other shots, btw. Your lovely
photographer may need practice with low light, but the daylight travel
stuff is quite nice.
December 2, 2004 6:30:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Michael A. Covington wrote:
> By the way, the 50/1.8 lens for the Digital Rebel is very cheap ($75 New
> York) and gives you (5.6/1.8)^2 = 9.7 times as much light as the original
> "kit" lens at 50mm. That's like going from ISO 400 to 4000.
>
> If 50mm is too long, they also make a 35/2 that would be a fine "normal"
> lens.
>
> *chuckle* This younger generation hasn't experienced available-light
> photography with a 50/1.8 lens... used to be the normal way to take
> pictures, with Tri-X Pan and Acufine (pushing to 1600)... you could
> photograph anything you could see. Photographing stars in the sky by such
> methods was what got me started in astrophotography.
>
>

Besides that 35mm f/2 is one very fine lens. It's fast, light, sharp,
inexpensive, better DOF than a 50mm, and it has great bokeh. I had one
on an EOS 3 and loved it.

Clyde
December 2, 2004 8:26:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 01 Dec 2004 09:39:07 -0800, Phil Stripling <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com>
wrote:

>I was camping with friends over the Thanksgiving weekend, and one of them
>had an Olympus C-2100 which he was using to shoot photos without flash --
>the light of the campfire was sufficient. My wife took some photos at my
>request with her Digital Rebel, and she couldn't hand hold the camera at
>whatever the settings were, so the images were blurred badly.
>
>Having a low-light digital would come in very handy at Burning Man and
>other similar events, and the C-2100 appears to be discontinued. The owner
>of the camera said it was the huge lens that made it possible, but as I
>recall, it was only a 2.8. Any clues on whether it's the fast lens, the
>small number of pixels of larger size, or image stabilization?
>
>Anyone know of other cameras with similar low-light capabilities? (Note: a
>D70 with an appropriate lens would not be a consideration, if it is the
>lens that was the key.)

Well, I posted a "usable" image the other day on alt.binaries.photos.original
taken by the light of a single candle. The camera is a 300D, the lens is the
50mm/1.8 and the ISO setting 3200. The ISO3200 comes with the Russian firmware
hack. You can do as well shooting RAW at 1600 and then pushing harder in the
computer.
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 12:02:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I had the Oly 2100 and if memory serves correctly one of the outstanding
features of
the camera was its image stabilization. That would take care of much if not
all the
blur caused by camera shake. (One of the features that I miss the most.)
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 12:03:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Opps, did not read the entire thread. The IS was brought up later on.

"Steven Wandy" <Swandy@si.rr.com> wrote in message
news:RpLrd.37312$Vk6.8085@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>I had the Oly 2100 and if memory serves correctly one of the outstanding
>features of
> the camera was its image stabilization. That would take care of much if
> not all the
> blur caused by camera shake. (One of the features that I miss the most.)
>
!