Which cameras have real Image Stabilization?

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

A friend is in the market for a new digital camera. He wants to spend under
$900. We have agreed that real image stabilization is a must have feature.
Has anyone a list of which camera models have IS so one can then compare
those to see which suit his needs?

Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).

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

Dizzledorf wrote:
[]
> http://www.photoxels.com/cameras_ultra_zoom.html
>
> This is a list of ultra (8x+) zooms, image stabilization / "vibration
> reduction" only as noted -- missing are the older S1 IS and brand new
> Sony H-1.
>
> this was on page 1 as well:
> http://www.digicamhelp.com/digital [...] ilization/

Both of which miss the newer Panasonic FZ5.

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

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 09:58:52 +0200, "PLONK!" <h@isnep.com> wrote:

>Don Wiss wrote:
>>A friend is in the market for a new digital camera. He wants to spend under
>> $900. We have agreed that real image stabilization is a must have feature.
>> Has anyone a list of which camera models have IS so one can then compare
>> those to see which suit his needs?
>>
>Check out this page:
>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare.asp

Ah, wonderful. That is my favorite site for checking out features, but I
was unaware of that page.

I see that for some of them for IS they have "Yes, CCD." I recall a recent
article in either the NY Times or WSJ (?) where they compared some IS
cameras and some had IS that wasn't as good as others. That is why I used
the words real IS in my request.

Thanks, Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).

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

Don Wiss wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 09:58:52 +0200, "PLONK!" <h@isnep.com> wrote:
[]
>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare.asp
>
> Ah, wonderful. That is my favorite site for checking out features,
> but I was unaware of that page.
>
> I see that for some of them for IS they have "Yes, CCD." I recall a
> recent article in either the NY Times or WSJ (?) where they compared
> some IS cameras and some had IS that wasn't as good as others. That
> is why I used the words real IS in my request.

I guess there are at least three forms of IS:

1 - electronically shifting the CCD data after exposure. This is mainly
used in video cameras, although I know the Nikon 8400 can do this in video
mode.

2 - move the sensor: some Minolta cameras can do this, including their
interchangeable lens SLR, so you get IS added to all your lenses.

3 - move elements in the lens. The most common and has been applied both
to point-and-shoot, e.g. Nikon 8800, Panasonic FZ20, and SLR lenses from
both Nikon and Canon (anyone else?).

I would regard real IS as comprising methods 2 and 3, and I've seen
nothing to suggest that one is significantly better than the other.
Personally I have the Panasonic FZ5, my wife has the Panasonic FZ20, but
the Canon S2 IS might be another contender.

Cheers,
David

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

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 10:16:33 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
wrote:

>John Bean wrote:
>[]
>> I've owned a KM A2 and a Panasonic FZ1. The A2 "anti shake"
>> is better at normal focal lengths and very slow shutter
>> speeds than the FZ, the FZ is better at longer focal lengths
>> but at not quite so low speeds. The difference is not great,
>> both work very well indeed.
>
>That's interesting. I tested an A2, and rejected it partially because the
>"anti-shake" indication said it wouldn't work at low shutter speeds (it
>changed colour as I recall). I'm delighted with the FZ5 I now have.

The light changes colour at a fixed shutter speed. It's a
gimmick, it has no effect whatsoever on the IS performance,
it means nothing more than "the shutter speed is low".

>With the A2, moving the sensor, at longer focal lengths the sensor would
>have a greater distance to move to correct a given pointing error. I
>wonder if that's why it doesn't work as well?

That's my guess too. But it was astonishingly good for
hand-holding in low light conditions at normal to wide focal
lengths.


--
Regards

John Bean

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

David J Taylor wrote:

>Personally I have the Panasonic FZ5, my wife has the Panasonic FZ20, but
>the Canon S2 IS might be another contender.

He is looking at the two of them that have external flash. Only having
owned Nikon digital cameras I don't know how external flashes work with
others. Do they have something like the Nikon TTL that shuts off the flash
when the picture has enough light? Then each has a special flash that it
communicates with?

Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).