I now have a Canon Digital Rebel with a 28-135 IS lens. I really like
the camera and lens, but I would say that the stabilization
effectiveness of the Canon is similar to the Dimage A2 I had. Both are
not nearly as effective as the Olympus C-2100UZ. If the statement below
is accurate, this must mean that the Canon S1 IS has much better
stabilization that the Canon 28-135 IS lens.

Paul Wylie wrote:
Bill wrote:

Has anyone compared the stabilization effectiveness of the Canon S1 IS
to the Olympus 2100UZ? I had a 2100UZ and I felt the stabilization was
much more effective than the Minolta Dimage A2 I have now. I was
looking at the Canon as a 2nd camera with long zoom and IS.


Agreed that the Dimage A2's IS is dramatically inferior. Olympus uses
Canon's lens-stabilization technology, while KonicaMinolta use digital
processing to compensate for the shake (instead of eliminating it).
The Oly/Canon lens-stabilization is dramatically superior.

I had a Dimage A2 for just under 30 days and returned it because of the
lousy anti-shake and other issues (noise at common ISO levels was also
objectionable). I bought a Canon Digital Rebel and am much happier with
it to date. The lens included with the Canon doesn't have IS, but its
focal length isn't long enough to make IS an absolute necessity. To cover
my desire for long focal length and quality IS, I'll be getting Canon's
75-300mm USM IS lens soon. The combination's a lot more expensive than
the Dimage A2, but the performance is also dramatically better.

--Paul
** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **