Image stabilization or not... - Hello, I'm a NEWBIE - HELP!! (Newbies assistance, User Guides and thank you notes) - CHDK Forum supplierdeeply

Image stabilization or not...

  • 7 Replies
  • 2538 Views
Image stabilization or not...
« on: 17 / July / 2008, 07:06:10 »
Advertisements
I want to get a Canon for use with CHDK, and I was thinking about getting the SD1000/IXUS70. I'm basically looking for an ultracompact for around $200 or less. Is not having image stabilization a big deal? If image stabilization is worth having, which camera would be the best?

Also, is CHDK for the SD1100IS inevitable? I'm wondering if maybe I should just get one of those and hope that a CHDK port for it is completed soon...

*

Offline LjL

  • ****
  • 266
  • A720IS
Re: Image stabilization or not...
« Reply #1 on: 17 / July / 2008, 07:26:57 »
Image stabilization is especially handy with, I'd say, >4x zoom lenses; but it's also useful for low light shots. And "low light" doesn't mean dark... there are plenty of "low light" situations you can encounter.

However, I think I'd value very good low-light response itself (i.e. high ISO without noise) over image stabilization! But I doubt you can get a camera with good low-light performance for $200, except perhaps some (used?) Fujifilm, and some example shots made using Lumix cameras also impressed me, but I think they're also in a more expensive range.

What about the camera I have, the A720IS? It does not shine for low-light performance, but it does have image stabilization, a 6x zoom lens (although the telephoto end is more than a bit soft), isn't easily pocketable but not huge either, and I read it's around $200 in the US.

Re: Image stabilization or not...
« Reply #2 on: 17 / July / 2008, 09:53:44 »
Yeah, I realize that for the amount of money I'm willing to spend, I'm not going to get the greatest camera with perfect low light response, etc. I just want something affordable that I can carry with me in my pocket. Even if the photos don't look great in low light though, it would be nice if they weren't too blurry... so image stabilization might be nice for that reason.

Anyone with a SD1000 want to comment on whether you've found the lack of image stabilization to be a problem in low light settings or elsewhere? How about developers working on the SD1100, is CHDK going to come eventually for it, or is there still a possibility it won't work at all?

Thanks everyone!

*

Offline LjL

  • ****
  • 266
  • A720IS
Re: Image stabilization or not...
« Reply #3 on: 17 / July / 2008, 10:40:42 »
Photos will look great in low light, and not be blurred, if you manage to expose for long enough without shaking the camera and while keeping your subject still.

It is a tradeoff between blurriness and image quality.

Image stabilization will help with the former situation, it won't help with the latter, obviously.

All compact cameras with very few exceptions are pretty awful in low light, so yes, lack of image stabilization is a problem if you're shooting still subjects in low light, and even with image stabilization, low light still remains a problem.

As a matter of fact, it won't work miracles; aside from the obvious restriction with moving subjects, I find that with shutter times longer than about half a second, image stabilization starts to be irrelevant or even do more harm than good (detecting movements that aren't there).


Re: Image stabilization or not...
« Reply #4 on: 17 / July / 2008, 11:19:33 »
I personally would not own a camera without IS. In addition to my four TX-1s, and Panasonic FZ-50, I have a Canon EOS3 with numerous "L" lenses that all have IS except for the very widest.

Statistically, the largest percentage of ruined pictures are due to camera shake. There are so many advantages to stabilization that all you have to do is look at the recent P&S camera releases and you'll be hard-pressed to find one without it. Two years ago you could hardly find one with it.

While you can shoot without IS - you could use a view camera with manual focus, manual aperture, manual shutter speed and carry an exposure meter - why would you want to? Camera technology has advanced to a state where, finally, all the major "wishlist" functions are available in most cameras at extremely reasonable prices and far exceed most people's requirements. CHDK simply extends the capabilites of these cameras into areas that only a few photographers will ever need or use.

If you want to grab shots, do street photography or any other type of P&S "snap" shooting, get a camera with IS!

Just MHO,  8)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<")%%%><<

*

Offline PhyrePhoX

  • *****
  • 2254
  • make RAW not WAR
    • PhyreWorX
Re: Image stabilization or not...
« Reply #5 on: 18 / July / 2008, 02:45:33 »
Quote
CHDK simply extends the capabilites of these cameras into areas that only a few photographers will ever need or use
well i don't know, but once the word about chdk hits the photographers magazines, there will be a lot jumpin the bandwagon and sure as hell would want a lot of chdk's features in their cameras ;)

*

Offline LjL

  • ****
  • 266
  • A720IS
Re: Image stabilization or not...
« Reply #6 on: 18 / July / 2008, 07:01:51 »
Bah, I don't know. CHDK gives me a histogram, and while perhaps only few photographers need or use one (what do I know), it's for sure that many other cameras come with that feature built-in.
Not to mention zebra mode, that's plenty useful.

And BSS has been a tremendous help for me shooting flower macros. Nikon comes with that built-in, so there's a chance it's not a completely useless gimmick.

How about the DOF calculator? I don't think other cameras have it, and I have no trouble believing that most people would never use it. But hey, in the days before the P&S craze, wouldn't people care a lot about DOF, to the point that tables were printed on the lenses? It must not be a useless thing to know.

*

Offline PhyrePhoX

  • *****
  • 2254
  • make RAW not WAR
    • PhyreWorX
Re: Image stabilization or not...
« Reply #7 on: 18 / July / 2008, 07:50:28 »
i for one consider the scripting an extremely useful feature. i think just about everything in chdk is useful, but then again i aint a pro photographer. i know i would miss alot if i was to buy a new camera without chdk capabilities.


 

Related Topics