In article , says...
David J Taylor wrote:
Cardamon Dave wrote:
I disagree. Image-stabilized digital cameras are far outnumbered by
very good 3X and 4X zoom-lens cameras. No image stabilization? Most
photographers would just use a tripod or monopod, rather than rely on
IS.

OTOH, I love the IS on my Lumix FZ1. But the 12X zoom makes it
essential.

What happens in practice is that in poor lighting conditions, if you are
near the tele end of the zoom, you end up with an exposure of 1/15s with
an 85mm focal length. There are a number of cures for this - a tripod
(which both Don and I would rule out - I want to just be able to carry my
camera anywhere), increased sensitivity (which today means increased
noise) and two solutions which the manufacturers could provide - larger
aperture lenses (such as the constant f/2.8 zoom of the Panasonic FZ20 and
similar), or image stabilisation.

Unfortunately, the only two manufacturers of cameras with a 24mm
wide-angle (Nikon 8400 and Kodak 880) both fail their users by providing
neither a full aperture at the tele zoom end, nor image stabilisation.
Kodak missed a chance to be a market leader here.

David


The trick is not to provide the IS, but to do it within the price target
point, and still not dispense with other, more commonly needed,
features. No one camera will satisfy the needs of every customer.




I would seldom venture to correct you Ron, but I think "the trick" is
for the photographer to learn technique, and stabilize the camera.

I have been shooting for many years with lenses as long as 300 mm
without stabilization being supplied by the camera.

With or without a tripod, 300mm (and more) can be done without the
camera making up for vibration.

Methinks the public expecteth too much from IS to begin with.

I have a couple of cameras that are in the range of 38 to 380 mm
(equivalent) zoom (one of them is a Kodak) and none of them have IS
because they were built before it became popular (read that as cheap) in
the market.

I have only lost a half dozen frames out of hundreds shot due to motion
blur, and my hands are not particularly steady for a 60 year old guy.

My hands shake quite badly from time to time for no apparent reason
whatever. I just had to learn to do it the hard way, because I started
way back when IS wasnt available.

I heartily recommend to all who do a lot of "long lens" photography that
you take the time to learn to do without the IS even if you do have it.
It will make you a better photographer.

Would I buy a camera that has IS??? Probably, but not because it has IS.

I dont "shun" it, but I dont crave it either.

A NEED for IS is a sure sign you haven't practiced good technique unless
you go past about 400mm.

Of course this is opinion, and not meant to be a statement of FACT
except as an example of how I view the world.



--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.