I've tried shaking my hands slightly when i tested Canon 900 Ti which doesn't have image stabilization...and the result is not blurry. So is IS really important??? And about the latest canon ixus 950 is model, does anyone know the dimensions of the camera (also the exact dimension with the lens protruding)?
2007-05-09 20:05:14 · 6 answers · asked by Lala 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Photography
Image Stabilization is important for several photographic situations.
. Whenever you use long telephoto, any camera shake is multiplied along with the image. Tripods stop the blurring, but can be inconvenient. If you like hand-held long telephoto, IS is important.
. Low light or other situations which require slow shutter speeds are also bothered by camera shake.
In your tests you probably got shots with fast shutter speeds at normal distance. You are correct, IS doesn't help that situation.
This website has ISUX 950 IS specs:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_sd850is.asp
Good Luck
2007-05-10 11:25:36 · answer #1 · answered by fredshelp 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most all of the lenses I use have image stabilization on them. I rarely use the feature. When using my 300 mm lens, I am shooting at shutter speeds of 1/500th or faster, so image stabilization is not necessary The one time I do use is is when I am shooting head shots for a newspaper when using flash may not be desirable. I can hand hold a shot at around 1/15th to 1/30th second with no camera blur. I do have to be careful that the subject is not moving so they do not blur Having IS on a P&S is fine, but unless you are shooting at low shutter speeds, it is NOT necessary if you can learn to hold the camera properly. Any camera you hold at arm's length will surely benefit from IS.
2016-05-19 21:14:14 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Image stabilization helps you get shots in lesser light, when the shutter time would be too slow. Stabilization doesn't help with moving subjects, in low light, only with subjects that are standing still.
For example, you need stabilization or a tripod with a 50mm lens when your exposure time gets longer than 1/60s. Stabilization lets you use 1/20 to 1/40 s handheld. Longer lenses require shorter times handheld, like 300mm lens handheld needs 1/300s or shorter.
2007-05-09 22:55:13 · answer #3 · answered by Sparry 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Stabilization is more important with longer focal lengths because the additional magnification will also magnify any camera shake. At faster shutter speeds and with short focal lengths, I don't see an advantage. For longer zoom lenses, it gives you 3 to 4 additional stops. For instance, if you are shooting at 135mm (long telephoto for all-in one digicams, and medium-telephoto for dSLRs), you would normally want a shutter speed of 1/125th of a second to overcome camera shake, and 1/250th would be even better. But with stabilization, you could get away with 1/30th or even 1/15th, given that your subject would not be blurred at such low shutter speeds.
2007-05-10 04:16:23 · answer #4 · answered by Karl W 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
People have done without image stabilization since the dawn of photography until very recently. They used things called tripods. Like many things (face recognition being another example) it is a gimmick designed by the camera manufacturers to make us dispose of the perfectly serviceable camera we had been using and buy another. Just one more example of global capitalism gone mad.
2007-05-09 20:42:58 · answer #5 · answered by rdenig_male 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if you have a steady hand it isn't, or a tripod.
2007-05-09 21:00:15 · answer #6 · answered by aclerokit 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋