Image Stabilization and Camera Shake

[Suhit Gupta]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://denizschildkraut.1000nerds.kodak.com/default.asp?item=543746' target='_blank'>http://denizschildkraut.1000nerds.kodak.com/default.asp?item=543746</a><br /><br /></div><i>"One of the major problems with today's consumer video captures is camera shake. Most consumers capture their videos with hand-held cameras. While they don't usually run after their subjects like my children, the smaller size of today's cameras makes it difficult to keep the camera steady while hand-holding it during capture. Because there are so many opportunities to capture video now, you don't have to lug around your camcorder any more. You can take videos using your regular digital camera. And the pictures you can get are quite decent since the common format for DSC videos is now VGA, which offers good enough quality that you can watch your videos on television or on your computer screen with no problem. But camera shake at times can be so bad that you may want to skip the videos and concentrate on still images. Here at Kodak we have been working on motion compensation to take the shake out at capture time."</i><br /><br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/Popsicle_and_Princess_resting.jpg" /><br /><br />Clearly the article is biased towards Kodak cameras and its accessories, however, the ideas mentioned in here are quite valid. As most of you already probably know, I have only one camera right now (the EOS 10D). Since Image Stabilization (IS) lenses are expensive, I hadn't bothered investing in one, until recently when I bought my 75-300 IS. I did have the choice of going with the non IS version, and it was about half the price of the IS version, but at high zoom levels, the motion blur can be quite bad. And honestly, it has been one of the best decisions I have made in buying a lens. So, if you are in the market for the camera or lenses, think about the IS versions, even if it gives you a few less features or megapixels; and even if they are going to cost you a little bit. Because, getting those good shake free pictures are totally worth it. And of course, if you have one of the newer Kodak cameras, you are already set.

[randalllewis]

This was a timely article for me. I am seriously considering a new camera with image stabilization. I have noticed two trends converging that are making it necessary. First, the extra long zooms that most cameras have now and the natural compulsion to use them. Second, I'm getting older. I don't have the shakes and I can still see fine, but I've noticed more often than before when I view shots on my computer monitor that look fine on the camera LCD that motion blur shows up. I know IS doesn't work miracles, but I am hoping it will make enough of a difference.

I am looking at the Canon S5 because it still has two features I really like: an electronic viewfinder (these aren't high quality but they do help stablize the camera by holding it next to your face rather than at arms length as you have to do with an LCD) and the swivel LCD which (contrary to what I just wrote) allows you to get shots at cool angles.

[Bob12]

I agree. I finally sprung for a couple of Canon IS lenses a while back (24-105 and 100-400) and haven't regretted it in the least. Besides the obvious image clarity, they also allow use of a slower shutter speed when appropriate without the use of a tripod.

[ptyork]

For P&amp;S cameras, IS is a no brainer. Cost differential is minimal and the trade offs seem minimal as well. For DSLRs, however, there are a couple more considerations. First, cost seems to be considerably higher. For the same cost differential, you could get substantially better glass, and as importantly, better low-light performance (wider minimum aperture). Both allow shots in lower light conditions, but IS does so by allowing slower shutter speeds while "better" lenses do so by allowing more light in. At this point you have to make a choice based on your shooting needs. If your most common subjects are landscapes and portraits, then IS is the obvious choice. If, however, you are more often taking stop action shots (nature, sports, etc.) then you are probably better off spending your money on a better performing lens so that you can capture images at a higher shutter speed.

Of course, if price is no option, then get both...

Or even better, convince Nikon and Canon to put a body-based IS system in their DSLR cameras so that we don't have to make these decisions and can once again focus on glass alone...

[randalllewis]

I did it. Best Buy has lowered its price on the Canon S5 IS to a far more reasonable $399 US, so I bought one today. Once again, Phil at DP Review has produced an outstanding review and I have noticed the same few flaws he did. Overall though this is a fine camera for the price. The zoom is much faster than my G6 and whisper quiet. I've used the camera only in the backyard so far, but I have seen the benefits of the stablization system already. I have a very large back yard, putting the zoom to good use. As usual, Canon fills the box with documentation. There are at four manuals plus several loose sheets and two more manuals in Spanish. The CD Rom also has documentation on it. Given the video improvements Canon has made on the S5, I suspect this camera may get a lot of video use. There is a dedicated video button, plus stereo microphones, and a very generous 4Gb limit on movie length. When we travel, I am always looking for something to leave behind as I am getting too gadget happy. If I am still happy with the S5 when on our next trip Europe, I may leave the digital video camera home and see if the S5 (and enough SD cards) can carry the load.