Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Image Stabilizer A Must

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
December 28, 2004 11:35:03 AM

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

I bought a Panasonic FZ 15 with 12x zoom and image stabilizer for my
wife who takes animal shots.
When I managed to get it from her for an experiment, telephoto and
macro, it outperformed my Nikon 4500, a respected camera, especially
for macro work.
My conclusion is that image stabilizers must become the norm for
digicams. There is just no comparison. I have a link to a difficult
macro picture from the Panasonic in the bushes, where a tripod would
have been impossible, and the Nikon pictures without stabilizer just
did not compare.
DonB

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id...

More about : image stabilizer

Anonymous
December 28, 2004 11:35:04 AM

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

I know what you mean, I have a KM Z3 and image stabilization at 12x
(48x) is simply a must.
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 11:35:04 AM

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

Since it does save battery power if turned off and you want to use a
tripod, then it might be a good idea :) 
Related resources
December 28, 2004 3:57:08 PM

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

DonB wrote:

> I bought a Panasonic FZ 15 with 12x zoom and image stabilizer for my
> wife who takes animal shots.
> When I managed to get it from her for an experiment, telephoto and
> macro, it outperformed my Nikon 4500, a respected camera, especially
> for macro work.
> My conclusion is that image stabilizers must become the norm for
> digicams. There is just no comparison. I have a link to a difficult
> macro picture from the Panasonic in the bushes, where a tripod would
> have been impossible, and the Nikon pictures without stabilizer just
> did not compare.


Something you should be trying for hand held macro work is an off camera
flash cord/bracket. The instantaneous light (less than 1/1000 sec) from a
flash freezes any camera motion and is going to end up MUCH better than
even an IS image would be. I did this for years with my old OM 35mm TTL
camera. Was able to shoot at f22 for more DOF and still get very sharp
images in any light condition.

For sports etc IS is great at keeping the lens size reasonable but for macro
use, this flash technique is a better way to go. Given how automated the
flash units are with TTY off camera flash control, this is simple to use in
the field.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 5:12:54 PM

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

DonB wrote:
> I bought a Panasonic FZ 15 with 12x zoom and image stabilizer for my
> wife who takes animal shots.
> When I managed to get it from her for an experiment, telephoto and
> macro, it outperformed my Nikon 4500, a respected camera, especially
> for macro work.
> My conclusion is that image stabilizers must become the norm for
> digicams. There is just no comparison. I have a link to a difficult
> macro picture from the Panasonic in the bushes, where a tripod would
> have been impossible, and the Nikon pictures without stabilizer just
> did not compare.
> DonB
>
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id...

Yep, i totally second that!
December 28, 2004 6:42:52 PM

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

I have the FZ20 and could not live with IS.

A question : If I use a tripod, should I turn the stabilisation off? I
have heard somewhere that image stabilisation does not work well with
tripods.

Cheers,
Russell.
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 6:42:53 PM

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

Russell wrote:
> I have the FZ20 and could not live with IS.
>
> A question : If I use a tripod, should I turn the stabilisation off? I
> have heard somewhere that image stabilisation does not work well with
> tripods.
>
> Cheers,
> Russell.

As for your question I suggest you experiment. My personal experience
may not be the same as yours.

Now for the question you did not ask. I would say that it is not a
question of it working or not working with a tripod, it is simply not needed
with a good tripod.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 6:42:53 PM

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

Russell wrote:
> I have the FZ20 and could not live with IS.

I presume you mean /without/ IS!

> A question : If I use a tripod, should I turn the stabilisation off? I
> have heard somewhere that image stabilisation does not work well with
> tripods.

There was an issue with some older IS lenses - expensive ones designed for
SLRs - whereby if they do not detect motion they may still move the IS
elements, thereby introducing a small amount of blur into the picture. I
don't know if this is still true with today's IS lenses.

On the FZ20, I'm sure I've used a tripod and accidentally forgotten to
switch the IS off. I haven't noticed any ill effect from so doing. Very
pleased with the FZ20, though, and I hope you are as well!

Cheers,
David
December 28, 2004 8:29:11 PM

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

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 14:10:08 -0000, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:

>Russell wrote:
>> I have the FZ20 and could not live with IS.
>
>I presume you mean /without/ IS!
>

Oops, yes, that was a typo :) 

Cheers
Russell.
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 2:05:30 AM

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

In article <dho2t0t7g7p9gcovj22nvfbnduipr3ft43@4ax.com>,
Russell <me@me.com> wrote:

> I have the FZ20 and could not live with IS.
>
> A question : If I use a tripod, should I turn the stabilisation off? I
> have heard somewhere that image stabilisation does not work well with
> tripods.
>
> Cheers,
> Russell.

IS slightly vibrates and drifts due to imperfections in the system. It
can add motion blur, especially on long exposures. Some IS systems have
an activation threshold to reduce blur while using a tripod. I can
never get that fat Canon strap to stop flapping the wind so sometimes I
still use IS on a tripod.

Besides that, IS drains the battery like mad. It's especially bad on
CMOS DSLR cameras, which have batteries sized for a camera that draws
very little power.
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 5:54:06 AM

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

Russell wrote:
> I have the FZ20 and could not live with IS.
>
> A question : If I use a tripod, should I turn the stabilisation off? I
> have heard somewhere that image stabilisation does not work well with
> tripods.

Check the manual - my Maxxum 7D book-of-words recommends shutting off
the anti-shake system when used on a tripod; my experience when I have
bobheimered turning it off has been that there is indeed some blur from
the AS apparently 'twiddling its thumbs' as it looks for something to
do.

Bob ^,,^
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 11:28:57 AM

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

"Kevin McMurtrie" <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:mcmurtri-59D7D4.23053028122004@corp-radius.supernews.com...
> In article <dho2t0t7g7p9gcovj22nvfbnduipr3ft43@4ax.com>,
> Russell <me@me.com> wrote:
>
>> I have the FZ20 and could not live with IS.
>>
>> A question : If I use a tripod, should I turn the stabilisation off? I
>> have heard somewhere that image stabilisation does not work well with
>> tripods.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Russell.
>
> IS slightly vibrates and drifts due to imperfections in the system. It
> can add motion blur, especially on long exposures. Some IS systems have
> an activation threshold to reduce blur while using a tripod. I can
> never get that fat Canon strap to stop flapping the wind so sometimes I
> still use IS on a tripod.
>
> Besides that, IS drains the battery like mad. It's especially bad on
> CMOS DSLR cameras, which have batteries sized for a camera that draws
> very little power.

I get several hundred exposures to a BP-511 battery, in the neighborhood of
600, with my 20D and 28-135 IS and 100-400 IS. Admittedly, I'd get more
using a non IS lens, but that's more images than I used to get with my A2,
the same lenses, and a 2CR5 battery.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 12:58:07 PM

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

Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> In article <dho2t0t7g7p9gcovj22nvfbnduipr3ft43@4ax.com>,
> Russell <me@me.com> wrote:
>
>> I have the FZ20 and could not live with IS.
[]
> Besides that, IS drains the battery like mad. It's especially bad on
> CMOS DSLR cameras, which have batteries sized for a camera that draws
> very little power.

However, on the FZ20 the extra battery drain due to switching on IS is
only a few percent (according to reviews). Nothing to worry about.

David
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 1:53:33 PM

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

David J Taylor wrote:
> Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
>
>>In article <dho2t0t7g7p9gcovj22nvfbnduipr3ft43@4ax.com>,
>>Russell <me@me.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have the FZ20 and could not live with IS.
>
> []
>
>>Besides that, IS drains the battery like mad. It's especially bad on
>>CMOS DSLR cameras, which have batteries sized for a camera that draws
>>very little power.
>
>
> However, on the FZ20 the extra battery drain due to switching on IS is
> only a few percent (according to reviews). Nothing to worry about.
>
> David
>
>
Same here with the Canon S1, I leave the IS on all the time and the
batteries still last a long time.
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 7:48:52 PM

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

> Besides that, IS drains the battery like mad. It's especially bad on
> CMOS DSLR cameras

Someone measured the actual currents on a Canon lens, I think it was the 500
f/4 L, and posted the results here a few months back ... as I remember,
autofocus was by far the biggest current sink and IS added very little extra
.... maybe someone can find the post and attach the data in this thread. But IS
doesn't cause rapid battery drain for the Canon dSLRs, based on personal
experience and the actual measurements this guy got.

Bill
December 29, 2004 11:44:59 PM

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

bhilton665@aol.comedy (Bill Hilton) wrote in
news:20041229114852.06305.00001733@mb-m27.aol.com:

>> Besides that, IS drains the battery like mad. It's especially bad on
>> CMOS DSLR cameras
>
> Someone measured the actual currents on a Canon lens, I think it was
> the 500 f/4 L, and posted the results here a few months back ... as I
> remember, autofocus was by far the biggest current sink and IS added
> very little extra ... maybe someone can find the post and attach the
> data in this thread. But IS doesn't cause rapid battery drain for the
> Canon dSLRs, based on personal experience and the actual measurements
> this guy got.

I totally agree!

I can also add my experience here: I use a Canon 10D and Canon 28-135 IS
lens, the battery drain using IS would certainly be higher but it does NOT
drain the battery like mad. If I can get 4 hours of use taking 500 photos
on one battery without using IS then I would get about 3 ½ hours and over
400 photos with IS turned on. Totally worth using IS in my opinion.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 12-Nov-04)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 1:30:03 AM

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

Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

> I can never get that fat Canon strap to stop flapping the wind so sometimes I
> still use IS on a tripod.

You would benefit from some sort of quick-release for the strap so you can
easily disconnect it from the camera when using a tripod. Either that or a
velcro tie to tie it to one of the tripod legs to reduce the flapping.

--
--
Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia

My Digital World:
Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.

Disclaimer:
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.
!