Stabilization Effectiveness Canon S1 IS vs Olympus 2100UZ?

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 11:01:16 GMT, 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.

Please take the 7 out of my e-mail address.

Thanks

As of 14 days ago I now have both one and the other. Spent a holiday
in Borneo with them both and I am very pleased that the Canon is as
good and a little better than the Olympus - but remember I have just
had 10 days of a rushed holiday evaluating - most of that time spent
on the loo reading the instructions as hygene in Borneo has gone down
the shute over the last 2 years or so.

Would you believe - taken to an Iban (headhunters of the old fashioned
kind) longhouse sleeping 25 people in the same room with just a
mosquito net as a barrier between couples and you can imagine what the
toilet arrangements were. Organising letters to the health and tourist
ministry.

For your information, my stats a
Win 2000, Pentium 4 2.4 Ghz
1 Gb memory,ADSL
200+200 GB of disc space,Oly C2100,Optio S,Sony 355E , Canon S1
Burners CD and DVD (Sony make)
Borge Pedersen :-)
Perth, Australia
http://members.iinet.net.au/~borge/SMbackups

remove SPAM and underlines for email

Should be similar: 2100UZ has a 10x Canon IS system

nesredep egrob wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 11:01:16 GMT, 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.

Please take the 7 out of my e-mail address.

Thanks


As of 14 days ago I now have both one and the other. Spent a holiday
in Borneo with them both and I am very pleased that the Canon is as
good and a little better than the Olympus - but remember I have just
had 10 days of a rushed holiday evaluating - most of that time spent
on the loo reading the instructions as hygene in Borneo has gone down
the shute over the last 2 years or so.

Would you believe - taken to an Iban (headhunters of the old fashioned
kind) longhouse sleeping 25 people in the same room with just a
mosquito net as a barrier between couples and you can imagine what the
toilet arrangements were. Organising letters to the health and tourist
ministry.

For your information, my stats a
Win 2000, Pentium 4 2.4 Ghz
1 Gb memory,ADSL
200+200 GB of disc space,Oly C2100,Optio S,Sony 355E , Canon S1
Burners CD and DVD (Sony make)
Borge Pedersen :-)
Perth, Australia
http://members.iinet.net.au/~borge/SMbackups

remove SPAM and underlines for email

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. **

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.

You might find the 28-135 IS more useful. It is the walk-around lens I
use with my DR 90% of the time. 135x1.6 gives pretty good reach.

I Like the kit lens -- but I have added a 17-40 f/4 L as my primary wide
angle lens. I use a Sigma 70-300APO Super Macro II as my long lens (but
I am not all that much into "long".

Part of the motivation for the 17-40: DR plus kit lens and a Tamron
28-200XR will be my wife's when I upgrade to the 10D replacement or
whatever next year.

Phil

Paul Wylie wrote:

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.

Any comments on how the IS on the Panasonic FZ10's 12x IS lense compares
with the Canon please?

Thanks,

Mark.

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. **