better ISO or image stabilizer for lower-light shots?
 

Just curious, if I want to do a lot of lower light/indoor photography
without flash, whats better?:

1)Cleaner high ISO sensitivity: Something like the Fuji Finepix F10 which
can shoot cleanly at
ISO400 and can do up to ISO1600

2)Use of an image stabilizer (for example, in the camera I currently have
the Panasonic DMC-FX8)
to allow you to use a slower shutter speed. For example, in this camera I
can take clean shots at 1/8
shutter speed handheld without problems, sometimes even 1/4.

I believe typically without image stabilizer you would want to use no slower
than around 1/60 shutter
speed? So if 1/8 is usable, does this mean 8x more light? If so, does this
mean that 1/8 @ 100ISO
is equivalent to 1/60 @ 800ISO? Is it just a simple formula like that?

For purposes of this discussion assume I want a small P&S digital camera, no
tripod, and the shots
are of static images (so slowing the shutter speed doesnt matter except for
camera shake from being
handheld)

Thanks a lot!

better ISO or image stabilizer for lower-light shots?
 

1/8 and 1/4 handheld shutter speed is pushing it for sharp photos.

Can I ask why you don't want to use a tripod? I am not sure of the weight
on this camera, but even small, cheap telescopic tripods are available,
measuring around 30cm X 1cm.

You also missed another option. Create your own light.




"bob smith" wrote in message ...
Just curious, if I want to do a lot of lower light/indoor photography
without flash, whats better?:

1)Cleaner high ISO sensitivity: Something like the Fuji Finepix F10 which
can shoot cleanly at
ISO400 and can do up to ISO1600

2)Use of an image stabilizer (for example, in the camera I currently have
the Panasonic DMC-FX8)
to allow you to use a slower shutter speed. For example, in this camera I
can take clean shots at 1/8
shutter speed handheld without problems, sometimes even 1/4.

I believe typically without image stabilizer you would want to use no
slower
than around 1/60 shutter
speed? So if 1/8 is usable, does this mean 8x more light? If so, does this
mean that 1/8 @ 100ISO
is equivalent to 1/60 @ 800ISO? Is it just a simple formula like that?

For purposes of this discussion assume I want a small P&S digital camera,
no
tripod, and the shots
are of static images (so slowing the shutter speed doesnt matter except
for
camera shake from being
handheld)

Thanks a lot!

better ISO or image stabilizer for lower-light shots?
 

My 1/8 pictures with image stabilization on are quite sharp. 1/4 is dicey -
maybe one out of 5 come out acceptably sharp.

I'm strictly a recreational P&S'er - I'm not hauling around tripods and
lights on vacation, or out with friends. :-)


"Arnold" wrote in message
...
1/8 and 1/4 handheld shutter speed is pushing it for sharp photos.

Can I ask why you don't want to use a tripod? I am not sure of the weight
on this camera, but even small, cheap telescopic tripods are available,
measuring around 30cm X 1cm.

You also missed another option. Create your own light.




"bob smith" wrote in message
...
Just curious, if I want to do a lot of lower light/indoor photography
without flash, whats better?:

1)Cleaner high ISO sensitivity: Something like the Fuji Finepix F10 which
can shoot cleanly at
ISO400 and can do up to ISO1600

2)Use of an image stabilizer (for example, in the camera I currently have
the Panasonic DMC-FX8)
to allow you to use a slower shutter speed. For example, in this camera I
can take clean shots at 1/8
shutter speed handheld without problems, sometimes even 1/4.

I believe typically without image stabilizer you would want to use no
slower
than around 1/60 shutter
speed? So if 1/8 is usable, does this mean 8x more light? If so, does
this
mean that 1/8 @ 100ISO
is equivalent to 1/60 @ 800ISO? Is it just a simple formula like that?

For purposes of this discussion assume I want a small P&S digital camera,
no
tripod, and the shots
are of static images (so slowing the shutter speed doesnt matter except
for
camera shake from being
handheld)

Thanks a lot!

better ISO or image stabilizer for lower-light shots?
 

A low aperture setting is another variable to factor in. Your camera
goes to f/2.8 in the wide-angle setting, which should be pretty
reasonable for lower-light shots. Your depth of field will decrease as
you approach f/2.8, but you will get a faster shutter speed at the same
lighting levels.

BD

better ISO or image stabilizer for lower-light shots?
 

IMO, you are expecting to find a P&S that is capable of doing the abnormal.

You must be using a prop to get sharp shots at 1/8. Even if you get
'acceptable shots', you will be at the maximum wide focal length.

Shooting in low light comes at a cost. Either you:
- Increase ISO to make it more sensitive to light (more noise),
- Use a big aperture lens to let in more light (more expensive, loss of
DOF),
- Use image stabilisation (more expensive, no good for moving subjects),
- Use a tripod (more to carry),
- Create your own light (obvious reasons).

As for your original question, compare an IS camera with a non-IS camera
with increased ISO. I can't see any other way of coming to a conclusion as
to whether increased ISO can compare with IS.

Bear in mind that good quality big aperture lenses for SLR's with IS cost a
fortune. There is a reason for that.

Given your understanding of the technical aspects of photography, I
personally think that a P&S is the wrong choice for you, unless you have
financial limitations.


"bob smith" wrote in message ...
My 1/8 pictures with image stabilization on are quite sharp. 1/4 is
dicey -
maybe one out of 5 come out acceptably sharp.

I'm strictly a recreational P&S'er - I'm not hauling around tripods and
lights on vacation, or out with friends. :-)


"Arnold" wrote in message
...
1/8 and 1/4 handheld shutter speed is pushing it for sharp photos.

Can I ask why you don't want to use a tripod? I am not sure of the
weight
on this camera, but even small, cheap telescopic tripods are available,
measuring around 30cm X 1cm.

You also missed another option. Create your own light.




"bob smith" wrote in message
...
Just curious, if I want to do a lot of lower light/indoor photography
without flash, whats better?:

1)Cleaner high ISO sensitivity: Something like the Fuji Finepix F10
which
can shoot cleanly at
ISO400 and can do up to ISO1600

2)Use of an image stabilizer (for example, in the camera I currently
have
the Panasonic DMC-FX8)
to allow you to use a slower shutter speed. For example, in this camera
I
can take clean shots at 1/8
shutter speed handheld without problems, sometimes even 1/4.

I believe typically without image stabilizer you would want to use no
slower
than around 1/60 shutter
speed? So if 1/8 is usable, does this mean 8x more light? If so, does
this
mean that 1/8 @ 100ISO
is equivalent to 1/60 @ 800ISO? Is it just a simple formula like that?

For purposes of this discussion assume I want a small P&S digital
camera,
no
tripod, and the shots
are of static images (so slowing the shutter speed doesnt matter except
for
camera shake from being
handheld)

Thanks a lot!

better ISO or image stabilizer for lower-light shots?
 

IS allows slower shutter speeds but fails to deal with SUBJECT
MOTION...the year-old infant suddenly moving in her crib, or the 5 year
old pulling the dog's ear, for example.

Less noisy high ISO would deal with the subject motion better.

Pair either of the above with a fast maximum aperture (like f/2.8) and
you have the ability to shoot in lower light, capture action better,
but this also brings in the issue of smaller Depth of Field, so your
subject does not stay in focus as well when they move closer/farther
from the camera just after the shutter button is pressed.

better ISO or image stabilizer for lower-light shots?
 

Yes, but in these small P&S cameras I dont see any lenses faster than 2.8
(please let me know if you
know of any substantially faster) so I've already optimized that as much as
I can.


"BD" wrote in message
oups.com...
A low aperture setting is another variable to factor in. Your camera
goes to f/2.8 in the wide-angle setting, which should be pretty
reasonable for lower-light shots. Your depth of field will decrease as
you approach f/2.8, but you will get a faster shutter speed at the same
lighting levels.

BD

better ISO or image stabilizer for lower-light shots?
 

"Arnold" wrote in message
...
IMO, you are expecting to find a P&S that is capable of doing the
abnormal.

You must be using a prop to get sharp shots at 1/8. Even if you get
'acceptable shots', you will be at the maximum wide focal length.

I'm not sure what we are debating here - I *own* the Lumix FX8, and I *do*
get sharp images at 1/8
with the image stabilizer turned on. Its a fact.


Shooting in low light comes at a cost. Either you:
- Increase ISO to make it more sensitive to light (more noise),
- Use a big aperture lens to let in more light (more expensive, loss of
DOF),
- Use image stabilisation (more expensive, no good for moving subjects),
- Use a tripod (more to carry),
- Create your own light (obvious reasons).

As for your original question, compare an IS camera with a non-IS camera
with increased ISO. I can't see any other way of coming to a conclusion
as
to whether increased ISO can compare with IS.

Yes, thats precisely my question. How does an IS camera with slower shutter
compare with a non-IS camera with increased ISO? Is it just two ways of
getting to the same goal (lower light performance), or is one method
inherently
better than the other?


Bear in mind that good quality big aperture lenses for SLR's with IS cost
a
fortune. There is a reason for that.

Given your understanding of the technical aspects of photography, I
personally think that a P&S is the wrong choice for you, unless you have
financial limitations.

I only know enough to be dangerous to myself, mainly :) If I had a larger
camera
I would never take it anywhere. I was considering the Canon S2 IS but its
just
too big for me.



"bob smith" wrote in message
...
My 1/8 pictures with image stabilization on are quite sharp. 1/4 is
dicey -
maybe one out of 5 come out acceptably sharp.

I'm strictly a recreational P&S'er - I'm not hauling around tripods and
lights on vacation, or out with friends. :-)


"Arnold" wrote in message
...
1/8 and 1/4 handheld shutter speed is pushing it for sharp photos.

Can I ask why you don't want to use a tripod? I am not sure of the
weight
on this camera, but even small, cheap telescopic tripods are available,
measuring around 30cm X 1cm.

You also missed another option. Create your own light.




"bob smith" wrote in message
...
Just curious, if I want to do a lot of lower light/indoor photography
without flash, whats better?:

1)Cleaner high ISO sensitivity: Something like the Fuji Finepix F10
which
can shoot cleanly at
ISO400 and can do up to ISO1600

2)Use of an image stabilizer (for example, in the camera I currently
have
the Panasonic DMC-FX8)
to allow you to use a slower shutter speed. For example, in this
camera
I
can take clean shots at 1/8
shutter speed handheld without problems, sometimes even 1/4.

I believe typically without image stabilizer you would want to use no
slower
than around 1/60 shutter
speed? So if 1/8 is usable, does this mean 8x more light? If so, does
this
mean that 1/8 @ 100ISO
is equivalent to 1/60 @ 800ISO? Is it just a simple formula like that?

For purposes of this discussion assume I want a small P&S digital
camera,
no
tripod, and the shots
are of static images (so slowing the shutter speed doesnt matter
except
for
camera shake from being
handheld)

Thanks a lot!

better ISO or image stabilizer for lower-light shots?
 

"wilt" wrote in message
ups.com...
IS allows slower shutter speeds but fails to deal with SUBJECT
MOTION...the year-old infant suddenly moving in her crib, or the 5 year
old pulling the dog's ear, for example.

Of course - thats one of the assumptions I explicitly stated. The vast
majority of my photos are static.

Given that, do you think one method is better than the other for taking
lower-light photos?


Less noisy high ISO would deal with the subject motion better.

Pair either of the above with a fast maximum aperture (like f/2.8) and
you have the ability to shoot in lower light, capture action better,
but this also brings in the issue of smaller Depth of Field, so your
subject does not stay in focus as well when they move closer/farther
from the camera just after the shutter button is pressed.

better ISO or image stabilizer for lower-light shots?
 

"bob smith" writes:
Yes, but in these small P&S cameras I dont see any lenses faster
than 2.8 (please let me know if you know of any substantially
faster) so I've already optimized that as much as I can.

I don't know if you'd call the Canon G6 "small" but if has an f/2.0
lens at least at the wide setting (f/3.0 at tele). The older G2 had
the same size ccd and f/2.0-2.5 lens and 4 mp resolution instead of
7mp, so somewhat bigger pixels.