All this talk of IS

Looking at all the talk of IS here, you'd think that photography was
impossible before the invention of this wonder-technology. Virtually
every camera recommendation espouses "IS" as the must-have solution.

And before people jump on me, I have 2 IS teles for my DSLR rig (and
will be getting a 500/4 IS within the next month as well), so I
appreciate the benefit of IS. Love it, in fact.

But I find the overwhelming "IS or bust" consensus here to be a little
overkill. There are other factors to consider, and some of them may be
more important. Just an alternate POV for all those considering ZLRs.
My 2 cents.

VK wrote:
Looking at all the talk of IS here, you'd think that photography was
impossible before the invention of this wonder-technology. Virtually
every camera recommendation espouses "IS" as the must-have solution.

And before people jump on me, I have 2 IS teles for my DSLR rig (and
will be getting a 500/4 IS within the next month as well), so I
appreciate the benefit of IS. Love it, in fact.

But I find the overwhelming "IS or bust" consensus here to be a little
overkill. There are other factors to consider, and some of them may
be more important. Just an alternate POV for all those considering
ZLRs. My 2 cents.

You are lucky in your DSLR having the larger sensor size, meaning that you
can use ISO 800 without worrying about noise. ZLRs (today) have smaller
sensors, requiring you to work at ISO 100 or less for a similar noise
level in the image. This lower ISO makes the required shutter opening
time longer, which increases the importance of having IS for a ZLR camera
compared to a DSLR.

Cheers,
David

Hi David -

I also use a G6 and an S70 - and yes, point taken about reliance on
slow ISOs resulting in slower shutter speeds.

However, I use film as well (***shocks of horror spread through the
newsgroup, and people draw back in disgust***) and Velvia is my chrome
of choice. That's 50 glorious ASA, and I rarely push.

I guess my suggestion to beginners planning to get a ZLR would be: yes,
IS is useful, but so is a tripod, which will generally yield better
results than IS. All else being equal, by all means get IS - but (a)
all else is rarely equal, so take other things into account as well and
(b) dont expect IS to be a panacea.

FWIW, I bought my G6 after seriously considering an S1. Ultimately, I
decided I'd rather live with a shorter focal length if that meant a
more responsive camera. Just an example.

Regards.

VK wrote:
[]
FWIW, I bought my G6 after seriously considering an S1. Ultimately, I
decided I'd rather live with a shorter focal length if that meant a
more responsive camera. Just an example.

Yes, as I got a Nikon Coolpix because it had the 24mm wide-angle and
faster picture taking. This after finding out that many of my shots with
the Nikon Coolpix 5700 were at the 35mm end of the zoom. I'll be keeping
the 5700 as well, though. Only my wife actually owns an IS camera!

Cheers,
David

In article , says...
When the hell did photo enthusiasts
get so weak and frail that the difference between the weight of a Pano FZ3 and
FZ20 was a major consideration?

LOL, I've been thinking the same for a while now.

When I bought my FZ10 most reviewers commented on the bulk of the thing. When I actually got
it I compared it to an Oly OM10 that I still have. It's almost the same size. When the OM10
was new one of it's 'faures' was that it was very small and ight.

Times do indeed change..

T.
--
Please Tony, NO!! You'd look dreadful in a basque and fishnets..

VK wrote:
I guess my suggestion to beginners planning to get a ZLR would be: yes,
IS is useful, but so is a tripod, which will generally yield better
results than IS.

....and a tripod *and* a remote control would be better still. Yes, I use
a tripod occasionally, if I've gone out specifically with photography in
mind, but if I'm just out and about and happen to have my camera, I
don't want the weight and bulk of a tripod with me.

FWIW, I bought my G6 after seriously considering an S1. Ultimately, I
decided I'd rather live with a shorter focal length if that meant a
more responsive camera. Just an example.

IS on my FZ-10 has certainly meant that "opportunity" shots without a
tripod in poor light or at very long focal length are more likely to
result in decent images. I tried an Olympus C770 without IS, and despite
it being a smaller and neater camera than the FZ-10 I would've needed to
take my tripod out with me most of the time.... Swings and roundabouts,
I guess

pete
--
"there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas"

Hi Dirk, you said,

What I find more disturbing than the search
for the IS grail is the fascination with the
size and weight of digital cameras.

Size & weight, or portability, rather than a "fascination", is a
reasonable concern with regard to any kind of camera. That's why medium
format, small format, and even APS cameras were invented in the first
place - otherwise everyone would still be shooting large format on all
occasions.

When the hell did photo enthusiasts get so weak
and frail that the difference between the weight
of a Pano FZ3 and FZ20 was a major consideration?

True photo enthusiasts carry at least one camera most of their time. These
people are concerned with portability. People who think of themselves as
"photo enthusiasts" but almost never carry a camera, and thus are not
aware of portability issues, are not photo enthusiasts but merely gear
enthusiasts.

These have to be people that are new to photography
or something, obviously they never strapped on a Nikon
F and sent out to photograph their trip through Yellowstone,

It is reasonable to judge of the convenience of photographic gear
according to its size & weight. It is reasonable to judge of a
photographer's merit according to his or her skill in making focus,
exposition and composition. But to judge of a photographer's merit
according to the size & weight of his (as someone remarked, always *his")
gear is near to comic.

To sum up, for a photo enthusiast even a toy camera can become a serious
tool, whereas for a gear enthusiast even a serious camera is just a
childish toy - the bigger the better.

Julio.

"Dirk Gently" wrote in message
...
These have to be people that are new to
photography or something, obviously they never strapped on a Nikon F and
sent
out to photograph their trip through Yellowstone

Nikon F is a lightweight. You need to strap on a view camera and photograph
your trip through Yosemite before you get bragging rights. :-)

Sheesh. You weaklings never had to carry your equipment around in a wagon,
chased by wild Indians and bandits, hunt your own food and carry two hundred
pounds of camera, copper plates, tripod and chemicals to the top of Pike's
Peak just to get a three minute exposure of the valley in bright daylight.

C J Campbell wrote:

"Dirk Gently" wrote in message
...
These have to be people that are new to
photography or something, obviously they never strapped on a Nikon F and
sent
out to photograph their trip through Yellowstone

Nikon F is a lightweight. You need to strap on a view camera and photograph
your trip through Yosemite before you get bragging rights. :-)

Sheesh. You weaklings never had to carry your equipment around in a wagon,
chased by wild Indians and bandits, hunt your own food and carry two hundred
pounds of camera, copper plates, tripod and chemicals to the top of Pike's
Peak just to get a three minute exposure of the valley in bright daylight.


"Luxury..... We used to *dream* of living in t'corridor".

pete
--
"there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas"

Dirk Gently wrote:

On 6 Jan 2005 06:31:34 -0800, "VK" wrote:
But I find the overwhelming "IS or bust" consensus here to be a little
overkill. There are other factors to consider, and some of them may be
more important. Just an alternate POV for all those considering ZLRs.
My 2 cents.

What I find more disturbing than the search for the IS grail is the fascination
with the size and weight of digital cameras. I've been reading these DC
newsgroups for a while now and I've seen several posts from DC shoppers
that listed among their considerations the "advantages" of one camera being
6.5oz (example) lighter than another camera. When the hell did photo enthusiasts
get so weak and frail that the difference between the weight of a Pano FZ3 and
FZ20 was a major consideration? These have to be people that are new to
photography or something, obviously they never strapped on a Nikon F and sent
out to photograph their trip through Yellowstone, that trip would have required
them to hire Sherpas to carry their camera for them....
/end rant

When I'm working, or doing serious personal work, I carry a 15-20 lb
camera bag. When I'm not working and/or not serious, I want small and
light. I very much appreciate the small size & weight of the S1 IS
compared to the SLRs.

Lisa