Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Question About Image Stabilization

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 2:20:46 PM

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

I know that there are many areas of possible comparison between a point
and shoot with image stabilization (IS) such as the Panasonic DMC-FZ20
and a DSLR such as the Nikon D70. I am concerned here just with image
signal to noise, in particular long telephoto shots. Since the IS
allows the use of a signiciantly slower shutter speed, how much does
this compensate for smaller sensor size in the IS camera?

Thanks.
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 8:03:02 PM

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

"john_doe_ph_d" <john_doe_ph_d@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125249646.873044.231400@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>I know that there are many areas of possible comparison between a point
> and shoot with image stabilization (IS) such as the Panasonic DMC-FZ20
> and a DSLR such as the Nikon D70. I am concerned here just with image
> signal to noise, in particular long telephoto shots. Since the IS
> allows the use of a signiciantly slower shutter speed, how much does
> this compensate for smaller sensor size in the IS camera?

IS gives one 3 stops (best case). As an example, instead of shooting at ISO
800, you can shoot at ISO 100 (best case). Depending on the camera, that
can make for a dramatic improvement in signal to noise ratio.
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 9:33:03 PM

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

All is relative.
If image stabilization is your only criterion you will be better off with
one of the "zlr" long zoom cameras. The smaller physical size of these
cameras and lenses combined with image stabilization will likely lead to the
kind of results you are seeking.
Image noise is not the most important factor in that setting.
Otherwise you would know why you would prefer a dSLR for long telephoto work
with optimized image quality.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 11:38:41 PM

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

john_doe_ph_d wrote:
> I know that there are many areas of possible comparison between a
> point and shoot with image stabilization (IS) such as the Panasonic
> DMC-FZ20 and a DSLR such as the Nikon D70. I am concerned here just
> with image signal to noise, in particular long telephoto shots. Since
> the IS allows the use of a signiciantly slower shutter speed, how
> much does this compensate for smaller sensor size in the IS camera?
>
> Thanks.

I think that IS have only positive sides. Since you have IS, you can use
longer exposure time and thus have lower ISO setting, for example. In any
case IS doesn't directly affect to noise. It's just image stabilization -
it's all in the lenses.
August 28, 2005 11:38:42 PM

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

> It's just image stabilization -
> it's all in the lenses.

Not if you own a Minolta, it's all in the body :o )
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 12:24:47 AM

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

dylan wrote:
>> It's just image stabilization -
>> it's all in the lenses.
>
> Not if you own a Minolta, it's all in the body :o )

True, but still has nothing to do with noise...all difference is that in
Minolta's case not lens is moving to compensate shaking, but whole CCD
sensor.
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 2:31:30 AM

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

Charles Schuler wrote:
> "john_doe_ph_d" <john_doe_ph_d@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1125249646.873044.231400@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> I know that there are many areas of possible comparison between a
>> point and shoot with image stabilization (IS) such as the Panasonic
>> DMC-FZ20 and a DSLR such as the Nikon D70. I am concerned here just
>> with image signal to noise, in particular long telephoto shots.
>> Since the IS allows the use of a signiciantly slower shutter speed,
>> how much does this compensate for smaller sensor size in the IS
>> camera?
>
> IS gives one 3 stops (best case). As an example, instead of shooting
> at ISO 800, you can shoot at ISO 100 (best case). Depending on the
> camera, that can make for a dramatic improvement in signal to noise
> ratio.

I see a gain of about 10 from using IS, so around or just over three
stops. The noise from a ZLR camera at ISO 100 will be about the same as a
DSLR at ISO 800, so the IS just about makes up for the loss of sensitivity
from the smaller sensor in the ZLR camera.

Whilst it's not quite as simple as that, the Panasonic FZ20 has an f/2.8
aperture at its maximum zoom range, which might require a fixed focus lens
on the DSLR. Cost and weight of a DSLR with a 300mm f/2.8 lens? Much
shallower depth-of-field with the DSLR, which may be either an advantage
or disadvantage depending what you're trying to photograph!

David
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 3:55:54 AM

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

SleeperMan wrote:

> john_doe_ph_d wrote:
>
>>I know that there are many areas of possible comparison between a
>>point and shoot with image stabilization (IS) such as the Panasonic
>>DMC-FZ20 and a DSLR such as the Nikon D70. I am concerned here just
>>with image signal to noise, in particular long telephoto shots. Since
>>the IS allows the use of a signiciantly slower shutter speed, how
>>much does this compensate for smaller sensor size in the IS camera?
>>
>>Thanks.
>
>
> I think that IS have only positive sides.

Not entirely. You can get some weird results shooting moving objects,
depending on the method of IS used. Electronic stabilization could
hamper attempts to intenionally blur moving subjects; mechanical
stabilization could cause undesired results when panning or tracking a
moving subject.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0534-4, 08/26/2005
Tested on: 8/28/2005 4:55:44 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 12:23:27 PM

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

Matt Ion wrote:
[]
> Not entirely. You can get some weird results shooting moving objects,
> depending on the method of IS used. Electronic stabilization could
> hamper attempts to intenionally blur moving subjects; mechanical
> stabilization could cause undesired results when panning or tracking a
> moving subject.

The IS systems I've seen include a horizontal panning mode option, for
just this reason. At a recent motor race, I found that IS on the
Panasonic FZ5 didn't interfere with the camera's ability to take fast
moving cars with a motion-blurred background, even without using the
special option.

David
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 3:43:39 PM

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

In article <WNCdnRf8xr7nhY_eRVn-hA@comcast.com>,
charleschuler@comcast.net says...
>
> "john_doe_ph_d" <john_doe_ph_d@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1125249646.873044.231400@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >I know that there are many areas of possible comparison between a point
> > and shoot with image stabilization (IS) such as the Panasonic DMC-FZ20
> > and a DSLR such as the Nikon D70. I am concerned here just with image
> > signal to noise, in particular long telephoto shots. Since the IS
> > allows the use of a signiciantly slower shutter speed, how much does
> > this compensate for smaller sensor size in the IS camera?
>
> IS gives one 3 stops (best case). As an example, instead of shooting at ISO
> 800, you can shoot at ISO 100 (best case). Depending on the camera, that
> can make for a dramatic improvement in signal to noise ratio.
>
provided subject movement does not spoil the party.
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 7:37:39 PM

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

David J Taylor wrote:
> Matt Ion wrote:
> []
>
>>Not entirely. You can get some weird results shooting moving objects,
>>depending on the method of IS used. Electronic stabilization could
>>hamper attempts to intenionally blur moving subjects; mechanical
>>stabilization could cause undesired results when panning or tracking a
>>moving subject.
>
>
> The IS systems I've seen include a horizontal panning mode option, for
> just this reason. At a recent motor race, I found that IS on the
> Panasonic FZ5 didn't interfere with the camera's ability to take fast
> moving cars with a motion-blurred background, even without using the
> special option.

Hence my assertion, "You *can* get some weird results..." IS won't
ALWAYS cause problems, but the potential is there under certain
circumstances - remember this was in response to the previous post
claiming IS had "nothing but positives".


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0535-0, 08/29/2005
Tested on: 8/29/2005 8:37:27 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 8:12:10 PM

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

Matt Ion wrote:
[]
> Hence my assertion, "You *can* get some weird results..." IS won't
> ALWAYS cause problems, but the potential is there under certain
> circumstances - remember this was in response to the previous post
> claiming IS had "nothing but positives".

Well, if someone wants to look for the negatives - IS is another thing
which can go wrong!

David
!