Image stabilization in high optical zoom digicams

Reviews of IS make me think it's a highly desirable feature, yet it is =
only available on a few digital cameras. Is there some reason, other =
then $$$, that it's not included on many of the 10X optical zoom =
cameras? Can you zoom to 10X without IS and get clear pictures without =
a tripod? I'm trying to figure out if IS is a "must have" feature on my =
camera.

"swingman" wrote in message
...
Reviews of IS make me think it's a highly desirable feature, yet it is
only available on a few digital cameras. Is there some reason, other then
$$$, that it's not included on many of the 10X optical zoom cameras? Can
you zoom to 10X without IS and get clear pictures without a tripod? I'm
trying to figure out if IS is a "must have" feature on my camera.

I have obtained good pictures with an 8x zoom (Nikon 5700) but I take
precautions:

- if possible, follow the old 1/focal-length rule, so when working at
280mm keep the exposure to 1/250s or less.

- where possible, brace onself or the camera for support.

Having said that, yes I think IS is attractive for both long zoom shots
and wide-angle interior shots where exposures may be in the range 1/10s to
1s. Whether lens-based IS (Panasonic and Canon) or camera-based IS
(Minolta) is better I don't know. I am considering Canon S1 IS, Panasonic
FZ10 and Konica/Minolta Z3 (but not the Minolta A2 which I have tested and
rejected).

Cheers,
David

"David J Taylor"
wrote in message ...
"swingman" wrote in message
...
Reviews of IS make me think it's a highly desirable feature, yet it is
only available on a few digital cameras. Is there some reason, other then
$$$, that it's not included on many of the 10X optical zoom cameras? Can
you zoom to 10X without IS and get clear pictures without a tripod? I'm
trying to figure out if IS is a "must have" feature on my camera.

I have obtained good pictures with an 8x zoom (Nikon 5700) but I take
precautions:

- if possible, follow the old 1/focal-length rule, so when working at
280mm keep the exposure to 1/250s or less.

- where possible, brace onself or the camera for support.

Having said that, yes I think IS is attractive for both long zoom shots
and wide-angle interior shots where exposures may be in the range 1/10s to
1s. Whether lens-based IS (Panasonic and Canon) or camera-based IS
(Minolta) is better I don't know. I am considering Canon S1 IS, Panasonic
FZ10 and Konica/Minolta Z3 (but not the Minolta A2 which I have tested and
rejected).

Cheers,
David


In terms of spec., Panasonic is better. You absolutiely want IS for that
long focal length.

"David J Taylor"
wrote in message ...
"swingman" wrote in message
...
Reviews of IS make me think it's a highly desirable feature, yet it is
only available on a few digital cameras. Is there some reason, other then
$$$, that it's not included on many of the 10X optical zoom cameras? Can
you zoom to 10X without IS and get clear pictures without a tripod? I'm
trying to figure out if IS is a "must have" feature on my camera.

I have obtained good pictures with an 8x zoom (Nikon 5700) but I take
precautions:

- if possible, follow the old 1/focal-length rule, so when working at
280mm keep the exposure to 1/250s or less.

- where possible, brace onself or the camera for support.

Having said that, yes I think IS is attractive for both long zoom shots
and wide-angle interior shots where exposures may be in the range 1/10s to
1s. Whether lens-based IS (Panasonic and Canon) or camera-based IS
(Minolta) is better I don't know. I am considering Canon S1 IS, Panasonic
FZ10 and Konica/Minolta Z3 (but not the Minolta A2 which I have tested and
rejected).

Cheers,
David


In terms of spec., Panasonic is better. You absolutiely want IS for that
long focal length.

"David J Taylor"
wrote in message ...
1s. Whether lens-based IS (Panasonic and Canon) or camera-based IS
(Minolta) is better I don't know. I am considering Canon S1 IS, Panasonic
FZ10 and Konica/Minolta Z3 (but not the Minolta A2 which I have tested and
rejected).


I've been waiting for reviews of the Z3 and FZ10 cameras as they do look
attractive. Before I replace my CP 4500, I want a silky smooth ISO 400, so
I hope these cameras are including better electronics than the other
offerings at these prices. As much as I like the high ISO performance of
the DSLRs, I don't like their bulk.

Steve

"Steve West" wrote in
:


"David J Taylor"
wrote in
message ...
1s. Whether lens-based IS (Panasonic and Canon) or camera-based IS
(Minolta) is better I don't know. I am considering Canon S1 IS,
Panasonic FZ10 and Konica/Minolta Z3 (but not the Minolta A2 which I
have tested and rejected).


I've been waiting for reviews of the Z3 and FZ10 cameras as they do
look attractive. Before I replace my CP 4500, I want a silky smooth
ISO 400, so I hope these cameras are including better electronics than
the other offerings at these prices. As much as I like the high ISO
performance of the DSLRs, I don't like their bulk.

Unfortunately many new cameras are chasing the big MPix numbers. Camera
makers assume the consumers are basically ignorant and will buy an 8MPix
camera over a 4MPix one, even if the sensor is too small to give a nice
clean image from 8MPix.

The obvious solution is to use a much larger sensor, but as you say it does
make the camera bulky (and heavy, and expensive).



--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~markh/
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"

"Steve West" wrote in
:


"David J Taylor"
wrote in
message ...
1s. Whether lens-based IS (Panasonic and Canon) or camera-based IS
(Minolta) is better I don't know. I am considering Canon S1 IS,
Panasonic FZ10 and Konica/Minolta Z3 (but not the Minolta A2 which I
have tested and rejected).


I've been waiting for reviews of the Z3 and FZ10 cameras as they do
look attractive. Before I replace my CP 4500, I want a silky smooth
ISO 400, so I hope these cameras are including better electronics than
the other offerings at these prices. As much as I like the high ISO
performance of the DSLRs, I don't like their bulk.

Unfortunately many new cameras are chasing the big MPix numbers. Camera
makers assume the consumers are basically ignorant and will buy an 8MPix
camera over a 4MPix one, even if the sensor is too small to give a nice
clean image from 8MPix.

The obvious solution is to use a much larger sensor, but as you say it does
make the camera bulky (and heavy, and expensive).



--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~markh/
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 09:51:04 -0700, "swingman"
wrote:

Reviews of IS make me think it's a highly desirable feature, yet it is only available on a few digital cameras. Is there some reason, other then $$$, that it's not included on many of the 10X optical zoom cameras? Can you zoom to 10X without IS and get clear pictures without a tripod? I'm trying to figure out if IS is a "must have" feature on my camera.

Swingman,

in my Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1-2 the image stabilizer is visibly
and measurably effective.

It doesn't mean that you can zoom in to the 12x max and take a
photo in dim light while standing free. Of course the stabilizer
has its limits. But it allows you to take the same photo at
something like two to four times the exposure time while still
getting a sharp shot.

I think IS is something wonderful, and I wouldn't buy any
long-zoom camera without it.

If you want to see examples, check
http://www.michna.com/kenya2004/ and also the previous year's
travel report. They contain a number of wildlife photos taken at
max zoom, some at low light. I don't even have a tripod with me,
but I do have a small bean bag (actually a pearl barley bag),
which I sometimes use. But leaning the camera against something
or at least leaning yourself against something makes sharp
long-zoom shots possible with IS.

Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 12:36:01 +0200, Hans-Georg Michna
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 09:51:04 -0700, "swingman"
wrote:

Reviews of IS make me think it's a highly desirable feature, yet it is only available on a few digital cameras. Is there some reason, other then $$$, that it's not included on many of the 10X optical zoom cameras? Can you zoom to 10X without IS and get clear pictures without a tripod? I'm trying to figure out if IS is a "must have" feature on my camera.

Swingman,

in my Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1-2 the image stabilizer is visibly
and measurably effective.

It doesn't mean that you can zoom in to the 12x max and take a
photo in dim light while standing free. Of course the stabilizer
has its limits. But it allows you to take the same photo at
something like two to four times the exposure time while still
getting a sharp shot.

I think IS is something wonderful, and I wouldn't buy any
long-zoom camera without it.

If you want to see examples, check
http://www.michna.com/kenya2004/ and also the previous year's
travel report. They contain a number of wildlife photos taken at
max zoom, some at low light. I don't even have a tripod with me,
but I do have a small bean bag (actually a pearl barley bag),
which I sometimes use. But leaning the camera against something
or at least leaning yourself against something makes sharp
long-zoom shots possible with IS.

Hans-Georg

See my prior post - I am a fanatic with the 2100 and the S1 both with the IS.
I used an Olympus 700 and there was no way I could hold that steady at 10X zoom.

B.Pedersen Latitude -31,48.21 Longitude115,47.40 Time=GMT+8.00
If you are curious look here http://www.mapquest.com/maps/latlong.adp