Image Stabilization - how much of a difference does it make? Olympus Evolt E620 12.3MP Live MOS Digital SLR Camera with Image Stabilization and 2.7 inch Swivel LCD (Body Only)I'll admit up front that I'm a lousy photographer and this contributes to my interest in image stabilization. I currently have an e-500 that i'm reasonably happy with and so, I'm wondering if I will notice a crisper image with the e-620's IS. Thoughts? I mostly use my camera for wildlife and travel. Image Stabilization - how much of a difference does it make? Olympus Evolt E620 12.3MP Live MOS Digital SLR Camera with Image Stabilization and 2.7 inch Swivel LCD (Body Only)I'll... » Read More Image Stabilization - how much of a difference does it make? Olympus Evolt E620 12.3MP Live MOS Digital SLR Camera with Image Stabilization and 2.7 inch Swivel LCD (Body Only)I'll admit up front that I'm a lousy photographer and this contributes to my interest in image stabilization. I currently have an e-500 that i'm reasonably happy with and so, I'm wondering if I will notice a crisper image with the e-620's IS. Thoughts? I mostly use my camera for wildlife and travel. « Show Less
924106
Just to expand Marty's point a bit...With a non-image stabilized camera, the rule of thumb for a 4/3 camera is to use a shutter speed of 1/(2 X FocalLength) sec or faster in order to avoid camera shake blurring.With the E-500 and a 200mm lens, you would need to shoot handheld at a shutter speed of 1/400 sec or faster in order to avoid camera shake blurring.With the E-620 and a 200mm lens with image stabilization engaged, however, you could use a shutter speed of 1/100 sec or possibly as slow as 1/50 sec.Note that image stabilization will not stop blurring from subject motion. Just to expand Marty's point a bit...With a non-image stabilized camera, the rule of thumb for a 4/3 camera is to use a shutter speed of 1/(2 X FocalLength) sec or faster in order to avoid camera shake blurring.With the E-500 and a 200mm lens, you would need to shoot handheld at a shutter speed of 1/400 sec or faster in order to avoid camera shake blurring.With the E-620 and a 200mm lens with image stabilization engaged, however, you could use a shutter speed of 1/100 sec or possibly as slow as 1/50 sec.Note that image stabilization will not stop... » Read More Just to expand Marty's point a bit...With a non-image stabilized camera, the rule of thumb for a 4/3 camera is to use a shutter speed of 1/(2 X FocalLength) sec or faster in order to avoid camera shake blurring.With the E-500 and a 200mm lens, you would need to shoot handheld at a shutter speed of 1/400 sec or faster in order to avoid camera shake blurring.With the E-620 and a 200mm lens with image stabilization engaged, however, you could use a shutter speed of 1/100 sec or possibly as slow as 1/50 sec.Note that image stabilization will not stop blurring from subject motion. « Show Less
1831772
In nearly every review of the G6 the reviewers state there is NOT much difference between the G5 and G6 EVF's (picture wise) however the refresh rate on the G6 EVF has been VASTLY improved over the G5's which in itself had been improved over the Gh2's so in effect along with the VERY accurate focus peaking system (not available on the GH2/3 or G5) and improved focusing performance overall on the G6 practically makes it the superior camera in these areas!
775711
sorry, did not see this until now. Hope you bought the lens - awesome. It has image stabilization 3 choices off and 2 on's. one for vertical and one for horizontal movement. Here are some butterflies I photo'd with it. www.patricialamphotography.com/flowers/flowers (yes twice on flowers) first 3 photos. very sharp. Wish my Canon 85 mm f1.4 and 24-70 f2.8 had image stabilization. Sorry for the delay
767374
Hi. I am in the exact same conundrum. I have been trying both and haven't really noticed a significant difference in performance. I felt like the Panasonic IS was very slightly better but I didn't test it very thoroughly. In the end, I use the in-built Olympus stabilizer simply because I often switch between this lens and the pancake. I guess you could try taking some shots in a low light setting both ways and then zoom in to compare the blurriness.
1635760
It seems illogical I know, but I have seen this in camera pricing here many times before: when a new model comes out, the older model often INCREASES in price even if the new model is improved. My guess is that there's some policy of increasing price when existing stock run low, which will naturally occur when an old model is discontinued. Doesn't make a lot of sense in a case like this but I can't think of any other reason for it. As for which you should buy, the newer S8200 has a wider zoom ratio than the S8100 (25-300mm equiv. instead of 30-300mm), which may or may not be good news. The wider angle at the short end is certainly useful, but stretching the zoom ratio of a particular lens design sometimes results in some deterioration of performance. Not having the S8200 I don't know if that's true in this case. I have the S8100 and it is super sharp over the entire zoom range -- I think a bit sharper than my S9100, which has a 25-450mm (equiv.) lens. Also, the S8200 has a 16-megapixel sensor as opposed to the 12-megapixel sensor of the S8100 and S9100. That will be seen as an "improvement" by people who attach great importance to megapixel count; personally I do not see it that way and am really annoyed by this silly megapixel race, which I thought was over with. (Nikon and Canon have both LOWERED the megapixel count of some of their high-end compact cameras, with resulting improvement in picture quality.) I dislike the trend to pixel cramming in sensors really too small to make proper use of such megapixel count. In DSLRs it's different -- their much larger sensors can really use all those pixels -- but these tiny-sensor cameras cannot. It's mostly if not entirely marketing -- camera makers know most consumers will think the more megapixels the better the sharpness, so this supposed "improvement" will sell more cameras. So personally I prefer the older S8100, but again, that is not based on any personal experience with the newer model.
42536
Sorry, the J28 doesn't have optical image stabilization. It just raises the shutter speed... and probably the ISO (giving you a noisier and more grainy image in the process). In general, any camera that offers "anti-blur mode" doesn't actually use optical or sensor based image stabilization.
573088
Ah Grasshopper, As in most things in life, the answer depends on who you ask (says the old Kung-Fu matser as he strokes his long, white beard) The argument in favor of in-body image stabilization sounds very convincing on the surface: Pay for the extra cost just once, save on all existing lenses, or new lenses that follow. If you already have some good lenses from Pentax, Olympus or Minolta, then choosing a corresponding dSLR body with built-in image stabilization makes perfect sense. If not, then consider the following counter-arguments: 1. Good lenses (with or without IS) are often more expensive than a digital camera body, and have longer lifespan. Your digital camera body will most likely be obsolete in 4-5 years, but good lenses may serve you for 10 years or longer. So it makes less sense to pay extra for dSLR body with built-in IS. 2. Image stabilization is needed most at longer focus length, but in-body IS (mechanical moving the sensor) is only effective at shorter focus length. Let's assume that the sensor can travel up to 1mm in any direction. When focus length=50mm, this 1mm travel corresponse to 1.1 degree of angular rotation (correction for camera shake). But to achieve the same 1.1 degree correction at 300mm, the sensor needs to travel by 6mm! Even if this kind of travel were possible, the inertia of sensor unit will make the response very slow. With optical IS this is not a problem - because light has no inertia. 3. Optical IS gives you a stable image when you look through the optical view finder, so you know exectly how well it is working. Mechanical IS cannot give you a stable image through the optical view finder.
191715
Hi Craig J., I don't know if it has image stabilization. I returned it the same week. The closure on the lens would not open properly, after only taking one picture. I did some research and found out it was a common problem with this particular nikon camera.
2268911
I shot the 12-60 on the E-620. The E-620, in size, is larger than the e-m10 however, I think the difference in construction makes the e-m10 heavier. I'd say that the 12-60 on the e-m10 would be a better balanced combination than with the E-620, although with the added length from the adapter for the m43, I'd cradle the lens regardless. In my opinion, it's a nice piece of glass worth any slight inconvenience from weight or size. Hope that helps.
1740862
How much better is the Image Stabilization? I have a Lumix FZ28 thanks. Bill
354758
The image stabilizer is a good feature of a digital camera but it more helps for people who can't hold a camera still. I had my mom wave her hand back and forth and the picture still came out still. I also took a picture of a girl on those wheelie sneakers and she didn't come out blurry either.
1649060
There are two versions - the OS (optical stabilized) and the non-OS versions. The non-OS version is somewhat smaller and lighter, and a bit over half the price of the OS version. Both are very sharp lenses, and are quite good for macro work as well as portrait work. The longer 150mm focal length is particularly good for focusing on live critters such as insects; you can get further away and perhaps not scare them off! The OS does help with portrait work, but usually you turn the OS off and use manual focus for macro work. Personally I have the OS version and am quite happy with it.
1906270
Yes. The alpha6000 does not have built-in "sensor-shifting" image stabilization. This means if you want image stabilization it must be included in the lens. I think the Sony advertises this as Optical SteadyShot or having OSS technology.As an aside, it is more difficult to implement built-in image stabilization into cameras with large sensors without greatly increasing the body size, because the distance the sensor would need to travel for the stabilization effect increases with its size. I think this is why Sony is choosing to keep stabilization in the lens.
435058
No, not really. Cameras for years have not had image stabilization. And they worked just fine. Honestly all you need to do is boost the ISO and increase the shutter speed to compensate for hand jitter. Or place the camera on a sturdy tripod.
1416428
No you have to turn the in camera stabilization off in the camera menu if you intend to use the in lens stabilization. The in camera stabilization in the A77 is good but there are times when I prefer the in lens stabilization of my Sigma lens. The reason being with the Sigma OS ( there name for it) you can see the stabilization working with a nice stabilized view in the EVF. The sony still shakes but then works when the shutter is pressed.
839108
Hi Allison, I think this is a very good DSLR camera, and also the smallest. I love Olympus cameras since they have one of the best algorithms to process light into pixels, thus ensuring excellent picture quality.Regards,Andras Heimann
1611414
I have had both versions of the lens and definitely preferred the one with IS. With that said, the difference in price is significant and the non-stabilized version produces superb images. If you are shooting outdoors with plenty of light it is perfect. If light is an issue when shooting I would definitely save up for the IS version.