Optical Image Stabiliser Vs New High ISO 1600 & Auto ISO Shift?

Question

Both seems to reduce blurring. What is the difference?
I am looking into Digital Ixus 70 and 850 IS/SD800/ Specs wise they are very close, weight Ixus 70 is the slimmest from Canon. Price wise 850 IS is $160 odd more. Also looking at the Powershot A570 IS, but this seems bulky althou its much cheaper but uses AA batteries. This seems convenient to get but its power seems to be average... meaning I either need recahrgeables or need spares.

Answer 1

You have excellent and accurate answers above. I would just like to add some photos to show you about image stabilization and hi ISO.

As far as your camera selections, they are all great cameras, but fit into their own niche. Just decide how much you want to pay and that will make your choice. Obviously, the IXUS 850 IS is the "full featured" camera and it's the most expensive. It's a great camera, though. The IXUS 70 is the way to go if you just have to have the smallest decent camera made. As Tom says, the A570IS will fit into a pocket easier than you might think by seeing the pictures of the camera on-line. You have sized up the battery situation exactly. All I can say is that, out of your group, I'd choose the IXUS 850 IS. If you don't have a limit to your budget, please look at the IXUS 950 IS. It drops a bit of the wide angle (which isn't the best range of this lens anyhow - read the reviews) and adds some useful telephoto range.

Okay, here is a series of my tutorials dealing with image stabilization (to show you that it WORKS) and high ISO.

~~~~~~~~~~

Image Stabilization - Vibration Reduction

This technology is known as "image stabilization," "vibration reduction," "shake reduction," "optical stabilization," and "anti-shake" by the various manufacturers. It is "for real" and makes a visible difference most of the time. If you are using an average point and shoot camera without a monstrous zoom lens, you will see the difference in lower light situations where the camera will be using about 1/60th of a second or lower.

If you are using a telephoto lens, the effect will be noticeable at roughly anything slower than the inverse of the focal length, which used to be our standard for deciding when you should use a tripod. If it's a 200 mm lens, you will see the benefit of "IS" or "VR" at speeds of 1/200 or slower. If it's a 500 mm lens, you will see the benefit of "IS" or "VR" at speeds of 1/500 or slower. Actually, you will notice a difference at slower speeds than this, but I'd say that this threshold is where it can be called a distinct advantage. Macro shooting benefits from "IS/VR" also, because any movement will be greatly magnified when you are working at extreme close range with high magnification. Also, I feel that "IS/VR" helps if you are using a point and shoot camera at arm's length as you compose in the LCD monitor. It is much harder to hold the camera still with your arms out in front of you. "VR/IS" would be helpful there, even with the shorter focal lengths.

Please understand that "VR" or "IS" (etc) will NOT stop motion in a moving subject. You need to use a high shutter speed and/or pan along with the subject in order to do that. VR is only to minimize the effects of camera movement to give you a better chance at getting a clear picture. It won't work miracles there, either. You have to at least TRY to hold still. You can't go down a bumpy road in speeding car and expect to get great shots.

This is a composite I made to demonstrate "vibration reduction," which is also called "image stabilization" and "shake reduction" by various camera and lens manufacturers. For the best results, you should click on "All Sizes" and then "Original" before making your comparisons. I tried to remain consistent for all three shots, but I guess as clouds move in and out, things varied by an f-stop or so. I do not think that depth of field is an issue in this test, though. I did not move my feet at all during the test, so the point of view is identical. All three images were made using 1/60th of a second, which I consider to be the low shutter speed for hand-holding a 60 mm lens. I made a reference shot with my 60 mm Nikon macro lens, since I know this to be a fairly sharp lens. I tried to hold as still as I could, but I did not use a tripod. I then made two more exposures with the Nikon 18-200 VR lens, set at 62 mm. I was trying to match the 60 mm lens, but I did it by just remembering some landmarks and zooming to match. As I used the VR lens, however, I did my best to actually "vibrate" the camera by inducing a tremor in my hands as if I was shivering in the cold. I took one photo with the help of VR and one without. It was extremely odd to look through the lens as I shook my hands.

Since the VR was working, even though I knew I was shaking the camera, the image appeared steady in the viewfinder! Okay, compare the shots for yourself. You won't see too much difference in the top two, but the effect of vibration reduction is very obvious when you see how the picture comes out when "VR" is turned off.

Nikon D200 - ISO 100 - Nikon 60 mm Macro and Nikon 18-200 VR with and without VR

http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/511455669/

I realized that the first VR demo (above) may not be a "real world" demo, as I was TRYING to shake during the exposure. Who does that? I was originally trying to answer a question for someone who had a problem with severe tremors, so I was trying to induce tremors in my own hands. Well, I should ask, "Who does that on purpose?"

So in this pair, I was trying to hold still for both shots. The white balance is different, as I am trying to learn about that, but I realized that the first shot I took had the "VR" turned off. Everything else is the same, because I didn't move and the shots were made less than 30 seconds apart. The exposures were the same for both shots. I did not do ANY post-processing at all, as that would defeat the purpose of the demo.

Nikon D200 - ISO 100 - Nikon 70-300 VR @ 240 mm with and without VR

http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/755244335/

For a detailed, yet easy to understand explanation, see:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/image-stabilization.htm

~~~~~~~~~~

IMAGE STABILIZATION - DIGITAL vs. OPTICAL

Some manufacturers have taken to calling an increase in ISO "Digital Image Stablization." This technique is nothing new. If you want to minimize blur from camera shake, just use a higher shutter speed so the shake will be less obvious. In order to use a higher shutter speed, you simply increase the ISO. The thing about "DIS" is that the camera does this for you without any input on your part. The problem is, with higher ISO's you can expect more digital noise (or a "grainy" appearance) in the picture. To counteract this, most cameras introduce some degree of noise reduction. This will soften the image (ie: "blur the image"), sometimes to an unacceptable degree. This will vary greatly with manufacturers.

I see a description of "DIS" on one manufacturer's site where they say that the camera chooses a higher ISO and faster shutter speed than the usual program "to enable you to beautifully and clearly capture images free from the blur sometimes caused by camera shake or moving subjects." They don't tell you that you will also "capture" a lower quality image due to either digital noise (grain) or noise reduction.

My Canon SD900 (and many others) has an ISO selection called "HI ISO" which does the same thing, but they don't have the nerve to call it "digital image stabilization." Maybe that's because they actually offer the real deal with optical image stabilization in some of their cameras.

Some cameras offer "sensor shake" stabilization and this works, too. It's not a marketting trick like making up a new name for using a higher shutter speed.

Here are two examples of Canon's ISO 3200. Read the descriptions for lighting conditions. The graininess is actually not a bad effect, if that's what you are going for, but the final result might not be what you are looking for when optical image stabilization would give you a cleaner result.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/842827784/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/842992586/

~~~~~~~~~~

"IMAGE STABILIZATION" WITHOUT "IS"

This is what you have to know about image blur if you decide to buy a camera like the IXUS 70 that does not have optical image stabilization.

Image stabilization is the real deal and it DOES help your pictures, but it's not essential. In the case of Canon's, it's about a hundred dollar upgrade in the SD (Elph) series. I'll add my stock answer on "IS" (image stabilization) after I'm done talking about some other things here and you can check it out if you want to.

When it was my turn to buy a "pocket" camera to take with me when I didn't want to drag out the SLR, I chose a Canon SD900. The major difference between this and the SD1000 is the sensor size, but I won't go into that now, since it's not your question. The key point is that the lens has nearly the identical zoom range as the SD1000. There are times when "IS" might help, but overall, I don't really miss it in this camera. If you have longer zoom lenses, any degree of shaking will be magnified and "IS" will cut down or eliminate the blur caused by that shaking. There are a few tricks and techniques that you can use if your camera doesn't have it.

First of all, like the old days, just make a conscious effort to hold still. Try to use the optical viewfinder so you can hold hte camera up to your face and not at arm's length. You can turn off the LCD preview if you do this and it will save batteries anyhow. Take a breath and hold your breath while you gently s-q-u-e-e-z-e the shutter, trying to avoid shaking the camera as you push the button.

In any mode, you will see a "shake warning" if the shutter speed is going to be slow enough that there is more risk of your shaking. There are a few things you can do in this situation to minimize the potential for a blurred image.

You can always force the camera to use a faster shutter speed by selecting a higher ISO (sensitivity) setting. You have a few options with the SD1000 to accomplish this. First, in the manual mode, you can simply select a higher ISO when the light is low and you are more likely to have trouble holding still for a longer exposure. This will force a faster shutter speed. In any mode, you can use "AUTO ISO," but you can also use "HI ISO." This will force the camera to go to the next higher ISO than the normal program would select under the existing lighting conditions. If the normal program would use ISO 100, "HI ISO" will bump it up to ISO 200. By doing this, it will make the shutter speed twice as fast so there is less likelihood of blurring due to camera shake.

The SD1000 also has an interesting feature called "Auto ISO Shift" that allows you to make a one-touch adjustment to the ISO if the shake warning icon appears.

The down side of increasing the ISO is that higher ISO settings will introduce a roughness to the image called "digital noise." Until you get up to ISO 800, it's not really much of a concern,

You can also use the flash, which would usually eliminate blur, if the subject is within your flash range.

You can also steady the camera on something or use a tripod and then use the self-timer so the shutter will go by itself without you touching the camera, eliminating the possibility for shaking the camera.

~~~~~~~~~~

Answer 2

I can think of two types of photography in which I partake from time to time(although not frequently) for which a high ISO is pretty much mandatory even in good light: Sports and bird photography. For bird photography especially, you're often working with really, really long lenses. Since it's something I'm not overly interested in, I take a 400mm 4.5 lens and put on the back of it a 1.4x converter and 2x converter. This gives an 1120mm lens with a maximum aperture of f11. This is a small enough aperture that I had to buy a special focusing screen for one of my cameras just to be able to even see anything. Even on a sturdy tripod(which is a must), this setup still needs shutter speeds of 1/500 at an absolute minimum to get sharp results, and preferably 1/1000 or even 1/2000 if motion is involved. Plus, since you're often working at relatively close ranges, you need to stop down at least a stop or two, giving f16 or f22. Even in full sun, EV 15, the absolute minimum film speed in order to get a shutter speed of 1/1000 is ISO 400. Thus, I'll typically use ISO 800 to get a slightly higher shutter speed, or to account for the fact that the camera is typically pointed to a place which is a stop or two darker than full sun. Granted, this is an extreme situation, but a very real one in which slow film really isn't an option. Of course, if I were a serious bird photographer, I'd just get an 800mm 5.6L and be done with it. Given the fact that they're still topping $1500 even in the many-years obsolete Canon FD camera system I use, that won't be happening any time soon.

Answer 3

Pumping up the ISO is a cheap electronic way to get a faster shutter speed and therefore less blur. The higher the ISO the grainier the image.

Optical image stabilization is the only true way to do it. Sensors sense vibration and move the lens elements to counter act the problem.

Go for optical IS every time.

Answer 4

Optical Image Stabilizers (VR, IS, Steadyshot, etc) are well worth the expense. They will steady your camera and minimize blur while maintaining the quality of your image.

Higher ISOs like 1600 will also allow the camera to choose a higher shutter speed, minimizing movement as well, but at the price of lower resolution in your final picture.

Answer 5

the 850 is a little more but well worth the money.
high iso or iso shift is a big joke - they make the picture grainy.
I have the 570 and it is smaller than you think.
so, you buy rechargeable AA batteries - no big deal.
they both have optical stabilizers - which really works.

Answer 6

beware of the marketing terms. Download the user manual from the website and read the Tech specs. GL!

Answer 7

optical stabilizer is good, the rest is marketing terms for its there dont make much difference but we have to say something important sounding,