image stabilization

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

I'm looking at buying a 10X optimal zoom camera. Some feel that image
stabilization is a necessary feature to have in a 10X zoom camera. Just how
important is this feature,and is it worth paying about $100 more for it?
Thanks, Mitch

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

cqdx wrote:

> I'm looking at buying a 10X optimal zoom camera. Some feel that image
> stabilization is a necessary feature to have in a 10X zoom camera. Just how
> important is this feature,and is it worth paying about $100 more for it?
> Thanks, Mitch

If you don't plan on using a tripod at full zoom, then it's
definitely worth it... Especially when you aren't in
bright sunlight.

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

cqdx <mckl@nomailbox.net> wrote:
> I'm looking at buying a 10X optimal zoom camera. Some feel that image
> stabilization is a necessary feature to have in a 10X zoom camera. Just
> how important is this feature,and is it worth paying about $100 more for
> it?

I have the Oly C2100UZ, which is a 10x optical zoom with IS, and it's such
a great feature that I put IS at the top of my list for long-zoom cameras
going forward, even ahead of a full 10x zoom.

I thought I'd found the perfect camera in the KonicaMinolta Dimage A2 (7x
zoom), but I found that its IS is inferior to the Oly's, and the noise
generated by the small 8 MP sensor was unacceptable for my use.

I ended up getting the Canon 300D (digital rebel) with the kit lens and
just recently acquired the 75-300 f4-5.6 IS to go with it. I'm very happy
with the quality of photos I'm getting with the kit lens, but I have to
agree with others that the 75-300 IS is fuzzy at the extreme end of its
focal length, and the IS isn't sufficient to fully eliminate lens shake at
full zoom for totally unsupported handheld operation, either.

If I were in the market for an all-in-one 10x zoom again, I'd still put IS
at the top of the feature list. The other thing to remember is that not
all 10x zooms are equivalent. The Oly's range was equivalent to a range
of 38-383mm on a 35mm film camera, but the Dimage A2's range (7x) was
the equivalent of 28-200mm, so even if it had been capable of 10x, it
would only have gone to the equivalent of 280mm.

--Paul
** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **

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

Charles Schuler <charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote:
> This was taken at full zoom with that lens:
> http://home.comcast.net/~charlessc [...] te1046.jpg

Very nice. Is that a full-res crop, or a resize? When I view the images
I've shot at full-res, they're fuzzy[1], but if I resize them, they look
fine.

[1] By fuzzy, I mean that the image appears to have been upsized, or
zoomed to 200%. A closer inspection reveals that the image looks heavily
anti-aliased. That could be a function of the settings I used on the
camera itself (I was in full-auto mode with default sharpening, etc.). I
haven't tried shooting with that lens in RAW mode or using any of the
creative zone modes yet.

--Paul
** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **

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

cqdx wrote:
> I'm looking at buying a 10X optimal zoom camera. Some feel that image
> stabilization is a necessary feature to have in a 10X zoom camera. Just how
> important is this feature,
Very important, unless you want to carry a tripod around with you.
and is it worth paying about $100 more for it?
No, it's worth even more.
> Thanks, Mitch
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

"Paul Wylie" <paul@teamwylie.removemunged.org> wrote in message
news:crf6qf$co2$1@reader1.panix.com...
> Charles Schuler <charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote:
>> This was taken at full zoom with that lens:
>> http://home.comcast.net/~charlessc [...] te1046.jpg
>
> Very nice. Is that a full-res crop, or a resize? When I view the images
> I've shot at full-res, they're fuzzy[1], but if I resize them, they look
> fine.

It's a crop. Also, I compressed it some more to reduce the file size.

> [1] By fuzzy, I mean that the image appears to have been upsized, or
> zoomed to 200%. A closer inspection reveals that the image looks heavily
> anti-aliased. That could be a function of the settings I used on the
> camera itself (I was in full-auto mode with default sharpening, etc.). I
> haven't tried shooting with that lens in RAW mode or using any of the
> creative zone modes yet.

The image was not shot in RAW. I have not found RAW to be worth the extra
effort for shots of this type. RAW IS worth the extra effort for scenes
with a large dynamic range.

As to the lens, yes it is a bit soft at full zoom but very acceptable based
on its cost. I find many of the comments about this lens to be far too
harsh. I have a lowly 300D camera, and if I had a 1Ds MKII, I'd definitely
get a better lens. In other words, consider a chain which always breaks at
the weakest link (no sense in adding one super-strong link).

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

> The 75-300IS is alright. We, SLRers, are spoiled by Canon's L lenses'
> sharpness and color. The picture quality of 75-300 at 300 (480 in 35mm
> term)still beats many compact cameras.

I'll go so far as to say that it easily beats most of the compact cameras
and at least equals the best of them. OK, now I have opened the flood
gates. Flame away!

Been to several camera stores and experimented with the extreme zoom
compacts and found that auto focus is not good. Auto focus is not all that
great on the 75-300 IS at full zoom but noticeably better than the compacts!
Can't comment on super zoom compact results (actual photos), however.

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

Robert R Kircher, Jr. <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:
> What are you using to view the images? I had the same problem and finally
> traced it down to the picture viewer supplied with Microsoft Office 2003.
> ALL my images looked just ever so slightly blurry but if I resized them a
> bit they snap in quite nicely. Since I've stopped using that as my main
> image viewer and now use the software supplied by Canon.

I'm using Photoshop Elements 2.0 (for now--I'm about to upgrade to 3.0).
I don't have that problem with shots I've taken with any other lens.
Shots taken with the kit lens are plenty sharp, even when viewed at 200%.
Shots taken with the 50 mm f1.8 USM are even sharper (naturally).

> BTW: I've moved to RAW (didn't take long) and it's by far the way to go. I
> use Capture One to adjust the RAW images prior to saving them as JPEGs.

I shot quite a few photos in RAW when I had the A2, and quickly decided it
wasn't worth the hassle. PSE 3.0 has native RAW support, so I might use
RAW more when I upgrade to PSE 3.0, but for now, I'm not mucking with it
much.

--Paul
** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **

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

Paul Wylie wrote:
>
> Charles Schuler <charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote:
> > It's a crop. Also, I compressed it some more to reduce the file size.
>
> So you haven't resized it at all? Were you at full zoom when you shot
> that image? If so, then maybe my 75-300 is defective, because I would
> definitely be able to see artifacts at full zoom with an image displayed
> at 100% resolution.

'Artifacts' are produced by post-image processing in digital images,
including 'display artifacts' with some image viewers which aren't
actually in the image itself.

AKAIK, lenses do not produce artifacts. They can introduce distortion,
reflections, or be unsharp, but they don't manufacture artifacts.

RAW images are the only way to eliminate processing artifacts. Also,
many zooms get an unjust reputation for being soft at the long end, when
most of the time it's due to slight mis-focusing, specially with AF.

Colin

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

cqdx schreef in news:10tm1hdtdf0n50b@corp.supernews.com:

> I'm looking at buying a 10X optimal zoom camera. Some feel that image
> stabilization is a necessary feature to have in a 10X zoom camera.
> Just how important is this feature,and is it worth paying about $100
> more for it? Thanks, Mitch
>
>
>
>
>
>

I have a Canon S1 IS (Image Stabilizer) and was able to shoot wonderful
'close-ups' of my first encounter with a wild bear last summer. No tripod,
camera in hand, ready to run.
Believe me: it's worth the money.