Antishake?

Antishake?

by spejax Sep 15, 2005 3:24AM PDT

I have seen newer cameras are coming out with the antishake technology. How good is this and is it really necessary to have on a camera. I want to buy the canon sd550 beacuse it has everything I want in a camera except for the so called antishake. Will all cameras have this as a standard on new models? Also would you say the canon sd550 is top of the line for compact cameras?

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -

Antishake

by snapshot2 Forum moderator Sep 15, 2005 6:48AM PDT

Image stabilization has proven very effective when using long zoom lenses.

It has less of an impact for 3X and 4X lenses.
At that zoom range, using good techniques for holding and using the camera can be as effective as image stabilization.

So far, I believe only Panasonic has released 3X cameras with image stabilization. (FX7, FX8 and FX9).

Image stabilization will never be standard on all digital cameras due to the added cost.

.......

The SD550 brings one interesting feature to the small camera.......continuous shooting ability.

Canon has added this feature to 7 newly released cameras:
A410, A610, A620, SD30, SD450, SD550, S80

...
..
.

- Collapse -

Then why?

by mrobzo Sep 15, 2005 7:06AM PDT

Is it a standard in the best quality canon Dslr lenes. Yes Image stablization is very important. The only ones that don't have it are the losers. Get the Panasonic or just compare in the store, you'll see the difference.

- Collapse -

It's not. I don't think you know what the best Canon lenses

by Kiddpeat Sep 15, 2005 2:30PM PDT

are. You are beginning to sound like a Panasonic evangelist.

- Collapse -

IS, AS, and so on..

by jump1127 Sep 15, 2005 2:59PM PDT

I personally don't trust that kind of shooting picture with just the equipment. The reason is that people tend to addict to the bad habits rather than correct shooting. It's helpful when the light is at the minimum. But, how many events, will you be forced in ? I'd rather spend money for a tripod, monopod, and camera's shutter-release control instead of camera and lenses. Just a personal opinion. You may view it differently. To get some good pictures, camera play less than 50 % chance. More than the other half is that you get going, compose and shoot the pictures well, right timing, correct lighting, and plan wisely. Visit www.photo.net and see that even film and small compact camera can creat such a great impression !

- Collapse -

And so on?

by taboma Sep 18, 2005 3:43PM PDT

Good advice. I agree with you.
Be there at the right time and take the photo. Use the light and conditions. May help with a steady hand. Experience helps also. The more the better.

-Kevin

- Collapse -

Here's why IS is helpful

by Gardyloo Sep 19, 2005 6:18AM PDT

The (very common) medications I have to take make my hands shake. It's too much of a hassle to take a tripod everywhere. I couldn't take photos at all until we discovered Canon's IS feature. I have Canon binoculars and a digital camera with IS, and think it's a fabulous feature.

People at concerts who've tried my binocs are amazed at how much better they can see the image.

I understand that many older folks also have a problem with shaky hands, so the IS would help them too. It might also come in handy if you're on a moving platform, like a boat.

- Collapse -

Tripods

by Donaldsc Sep 24, 2005 5:14AM PDT

Tripods - the ultimate anti shake technology.

I recently took a serious course on photography - not digital or analog photography but photography. When we had a discussion with the instructor on accessories, he said that the first accessory he would buy would be a tripod.

I am not luddite but tripods always work. They force you to think about your photgraph before you take it. They also work much better than any electronic solution. There are a number of sites out there (I will try to find one and post it) that allege that anti-shake can in some circumstances work against you and blur your image.

Buy your camera for the camera. If it come with anti-shake and you know its limitations - use it. However, also buy a good (not cheap) tripod) and use it first.

- Collapse -

Yes and No. Tripods are the first choice, but they do not

by Kiddpeat Sep 24, 2005 7:52AM PDT

always work. Why not? Sometimes the action is moving too fast. A tripod cannot keep up. Sometimes you simply do not have the tripod. Then, you want stabilization.

- Collapse -

Yeah, but anti-shake is gonna be much more convenient.

by Dallas Sep 25, 2005 9:16AM PDT

Yeah, but anti-shake is gonna be much more convenient than taking a tripod everywhere. Tripod is probably the best, but if you dont want to be taking that with you everywhere (i know i dont) than anti-shake is nice.

- Collapse -

Not necessary at 3x

by jmacm Sep 25, 2005 11:33PM PDT

IS can be a nice feature at an effective focal range of 111mm, but it doesn't really become a great feature until the 200-300mm range. If you're shooting static subjects (like landscapes with no breeze) it's a little more helpful, but if you're taking pictures of kids or people it doesn't help near as much.

At 100mm most people can shoot handheld at 1/60th of a second. IS will let you shoot 1/15th of a second without camera blur--but anything in motion will still suffer from motion blur. You really need at least 1/30th of a second to stop normal motion, and 1/60th to stop high-speed motion. One extra stop at the end of the zoom just isn't worth much. There just isn't that often that it lets you capture an image you'd have missed without it.

- Collapse -

Anti-Shake Article

by poppyseeds1 Feb 13, 2007 6:59AM PST

Here's a recent article about the Anti-Shake features, check it out!
http://www.takegreatpictures.com/HOME/Columns/Digital_Photography/Details/anti_shake.fci

CNET Forums

Other Forums

Forum Info