How important is image stabilization when researching getting a digital camera?
do you think it’s a requirement or just a marketing tool?
It’s like autofocus and autometering. The greatest photographers in history didn’t realize they had lousy cameras and took magnificent pictures anyway!
I love the VR (vibration reduction) in my Nikon 18-200mm lens. And I recently bought an HP point & shoot for a relative that had built in IS. After all, she’s 80+ and isn’t the steadiest when taking pictures.
If you’re taking action shots, it’s a plus. If you’re taking portraits or scenics, it’s not. Here’s some sports photos I took WITHOUT any stabilization, except for using good photographer’s techniques.
http://www.spmsportspage.com/images/college/football/2007/California-45-Tennessee-31-09-01-2007/DSC_0065_GHYoung.html
http://www.spmsportspage.com/images/college/football/2007/California-42-Louisiana-Tech-12-09-15-2007/DSC_8135_GHYoung.html
That being said, I would still look for it, just as an added feature. Many wouldn’t live without it.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/image-stabilization.htm
I hope you find this helpful.
I have the canon A570 IS, 4X optical zoom, I think it takes good pictures using the zoom, it is my understanding that the image stablization is for, when using the zoom, to keep the pic stable.
References :
It would depend upon what type of photography you expect to do.
Stabilizers serve a function when you are taking photos in low light where a slower shutter speed may increase the chance of camera movement. Other occasions would be when taking pictures from a moving or vibrating platform such as a vehicle. If you are using a telephoto lens and you do not have a tripod, or if you are taking photos of moving objects like sports players or running animals where camera movement would be an issue, then an image stabilizer rises in importance for your purchase consideration. Camera movement is sometimes an issue when taking macro shots.
Basic steps can be utilized to avoid the high cost of stabilizers. Having a steady foot base, keeping your elbows close to your body, not jerking the shutter release, and using the viewfinder if it has one instead of the LCD screen, hold the camera with both hands, and lean your body against something whenever possible.
Tripods are less expensive but are sometimes cumbersome and take more time to set up a shot. If you don’t feel like carrying a tripod with you, and you expect the above photo opportunities apply to you, then purchasing a camera with image stabilization would be recommended if it falls within your budget.
References :
it works
but you really don’t need it
References :
It’s like autofocus and autometering. The greatest photographers in history didn’t realize they had lousy cameras and took magnificent pictures anyway!
I love the VR (vibration reduction) in my Nikon 18-200mm lens. And I recently bought an HP point & shoot for a relative that had built in IS. After all, she’s 80+ and isn’t the steadiest when taking pictures.
If you’re taking action shots, it’s a plus. If you’re taking portraits or scenics, it’s not. Here’s some sports photos I took WITHOUT any stabilization, except for using good photographer’s techniques.
http://www.spmsportspage.com/images/college/football/2007/California-45-Tennessee-31-09-01-2007/DSC_0065_GHYoung.html
http://www.spmsportspage.com/images/college/football/2007/California-42-Louisiana-Tech-12-09-15-2007/DSC_8135_GHYoung.html
That being said, I would still look for it, just as an added feature. Many wouldn’t live without it.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/image-stabilization.htm
I hope you find this helpful.
References :
Amateur & professional photographer for 45+ years