How do YOU define image stabilization?

Question

The newest Consumer Reports has an article on digital cameras. The ratings chart indicated whether or not a camera has image stabilization. Aparently - based on the chart - they do not make any distinction between lens-based, sensor-based or sensitivity shift technology. I feel that this is misleading and will cause many "consumers" to buy cameras that utilize ISO shift for so-called "image stabilization" who will then be disappointed in their results.

What do you think?

Thanks, Tom

Morey, you say, "Those who confuse marketing hype with truth are just suckers," and I totally agree. I am just disappointed that so many people will trust Consumer Reports on this issue without realizing that CR was among the suckers. I wrote a letter to them already asking them to publish an "update" on their report to clear up the issue. (pun intended)

Mungee, the thing is they said nothing at all about the different types of "image stabilization" in the article. In fact, they chose one super-zoon as a recommended "quick pick" based partly on the "fact" that it has "IS," when (in fact) it is only ISO shift. Image the poor fool (sorry) who buys this camera with a 1/2.5" sensor zooms it out to 10X and uses another 3-4X digital zoom and ends up using ISO 1600 comes here and asks why his pictures are such poor quality, since he bought "one of the best" as recommended by a trusted consumer journal.

Vance, I agree with everything you said. I guess it is true that for the average buyer, a higher shutter speed will mean a less blurry picture. I think CR could have explained the difference, though, as they sometimes get v-e-r-y picky on other subjects. Please don't report me for failing to ask a real question, but my point here was to initiate a discussion more than start a critical evaluation of various modes of image stabilization.

Bob, you're treading on thin ice and you know it. (haha) I do offer CR in my office, but it is balanced by "Road and Track," "Country Woman," and now "Aperture." I wrote to them anyway, because I remember how horrible their car reviews used to be. They are not as out of touch as they used to be. Maybe we can drag them into the 21st century for cameras as well.

Teef, they DID have a highlighted box warning that digital zoom was not such a great thing. I am hoping that they put a similar explanation about ISO shift vs. real IS in the next article on cameras. They seem to do about two a year now.

Answer 1

Its really a non problem. Lets just say that the economic term for this is asymmetry of information.

If I want to buy a dish washer I will use CR as "one of the sources" of information not the the sole source as many people have made it out to be. But I really don't think I am the intended audience when it comes to cameras and photographic technology. I am clueless about dishwashers but I am well aware of several reputable websites (not published periodicals) that provide a more in-depth information about all products I might be interested in. So the information that CR publishes is really not intended for me, its intended for say...."dishwasher experts who don't have a clue about cameras or folks who are neither expert in either".

So CR will talk about everything in the lowest common denominator and in the lowest common denominator where you shift ISO to gain the shutter speed required to get a "non blurry" pictures and thats fine.

If someone thinks that since CR says ISO shift is good enough when compared to a Canon 4 stop IS which is the same thing as in-body IS from Sony then perhaps DSLR photography is not for them.

We are talking about a product that costs more than a dishwasher (and is not dishwasher safe, though some think thats a good way to clean sensors ;-) _So if they don't want to do adequate research then its their problem. Till then I will continue looking for "the dishwasher forum" or better yet use Yahoo answer's.

Edit 1: Response to SAM : They are trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Image shakes coz your shutter speed is too slow for the given FL. You can either write up a long spiel about how you use 1/focal length as the shutter speed if not you need to bump your ISO or make it idiot proof by bumping your ISO for you so that you get a shutter speed that does not give you shaky images (hence image stabilization).

Like I said before, anyone who uses CR as the sole source of info really does not have the time or the inclination to delve into the nuances of DSLR or even SLR photography, just like I don't have the time or inclination to get into dishwasher tech and hence use CR info.

You are being a purist in thinking that IS should be solely used for in-camera or body body based mechanical stabilization and not for software based ISO shift. That whole article is NOT meant for people like you. You know more than what CR wants to explain. Heck, I would say that Nikon/Canon in lens stabilization is better than in-camera since its focal length (and hence magnification) specific and hence continues to evolve (its now upto 4 stops).

Since Yahoo answer does not support a forum like discussion format, all I am doing is elongating my OP.

Answer 2

I agree with you Dr Sam, the biggest problem is that people will take these "results" as a comprehensive guide telling them all they need to know and this is clearly not the case.

I define Image Stabilization as any technology that assists in overcoming blur caused by camera movement or shake. HOWEVER - I also make a clear distinction between OPTICAL image stabilization - a system that uses a mechanical device that actively counteracts blur (good) and DIGITAL image stabilization which boosts ISO for faster shutter speed. (bad)

I see this as a little like zoom, there is optical (good) and digital (bad). In the beginning people were confused about zoom and some people still are. But overall people are becoming aware of the critical difference. I hope that bad publicity will encourage manufacturers and reviewers to make this same distinction. A camera that only has digital IS is not necessarily a bad thing, particularly on a very tight budget, but the purchaser should be fully aware of what they are buying.

Cheers Dr Sam,

teef.

Answer 3

Personally, I define image stabilization as anything less than 5 cups of Jamican Blue Mountain Coffee, or 1-2 shots of single malt scotch (25 yrs) one to two hours before shooting.

I wouldn't beat up on consumer reports that much. For the consumer audience they have, all of the methods produce better pictures than they will get without it. It's that simple. Camera motion blur maybe the number one complaint that people have.

Upping the ISO to get a faster shutter speed isn't image stabilization, of course, but it gets the job done for the point and shoot user and they don't have to think about it. If they have any experience taking pictures under the conditions where ISO upping kicks in, how could they be dissappointed? Is the ISO noise as damaging to image quality as motion blur? I don't think so.

Between digital IS and Optical, optical is superior and it will remain that way for a long time. The digital processing itself degrades the image. Slightly, perhaps, but inevitably. Added to the softening effects of demosaicing and the image is just a little bit less good than it would be without the added processing.

In the lens optical stabilization is the best method at the moment and I expect it to stay that way. It is more sensitive and responsive to smaller movements than anything in camera. It's built into the physics of the situation.

I have lenses up to 400 mm that are just plain old hunks of glass and I don't miss having IS. I used a friends camera a little while ago with a nice IS 200 mm lens. I hadn't brought mine with me. After the days shooting, we were looking at the pictures and he was impressing me with how nice the shots came out with IS. Well, they were nice shots. But, you see, I hadn't enabled it. There seemed to be three things I could do with the settings, leave it off, and two other things that I didn't know what they did. I felt safer leaving it off.

I did just fine with a monopod and the techniques I knew. I will be looking for good prices on used lenses that I want when the IS ones come out :)

Rant over.

In sum, for the consumer, for what they want to do with a camera, the recommendations are entirely appropriate in my opinion. If I don't think in terms of IS, but instead think about whether the camera will help with the blur problem, then the answer is yes. With whatever approach is used, Consumer Reports has correctly indicated that the camera will take less blurry pictures due to camera shake.

I need to send my soapbox into the shop. The 'Rant Off' button seems to be broken.

Vance

Answer 4

Consumer Reports is notorious for erroneous camera reviews. They've always been clueless and shallow in their recommendations. Their staff fail to research common sense issues as you've raised. How do you fight such a "impartial" publication. I voted with my pocketbook and a letter explaining my lack of confidence in their editorial integrity and research methodology. If I pick one up now, it's in a dentists office to dull the pain.

Answer 5

That's easy.
Lens shift of sensor shift qualify as IS.
ISO increase does not.

But Sam- I don't think that this is really debatable, is it?
Those who confuse marketing hype with truth are just suckers.

Answer 6

Imagine Stabiliaztion = Shift of lens or senor. Not boost in ISO. Anyone can boost ISO to compensate for a faster shutter speed. :)(

Answer 7

you are exactly correct.
kodak and many other companies use the iso shift.
I like canon because of the mechanical lens shift.
good question Dr. Sam...

Answer 8

Dr think about it, these groups appoint themselves as experts on a different product every week?

dont worry consumer groups mislead people all over the world from my experience..........we should advise consumers on the correct adult nappies to wear one week, then the next week we could be experts on tampons..........see where im going?

a