If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
better ISO or image stabilizer for lower-light shots?
"bob smith" writes:
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? Slower shutter speed means blurry shots with moving subjects, IS or not. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
reflectors vs diffusers which are better for portraits? | David Virgil Hobbs | Digital Photography | 50 | December 5th 04 07:06 PM |
reflectors vs diffusers which are better for portraits? | David Virgil Hobbs | 35mm Photo Equipment | 45 | December 5th 04 07:06 PM |
Image circle versus stopping down? | Nick Zentena | Large Format Photography Equipment | 11 | July 3rd 04 02:40 PM |
New Leica digital back info.... | Barney | 35mm Photo Equipment | 19 | June 30th 04 12:45 AM |
How to determine distance from KEY light to subject | Phil Lamerton | Photographing People | 12 | April 27th 04 05:49 PM |