[M43] How important is Image Stabilization to you?

C

c_man

Messages
6
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All,

How strongly do you rate Image Stabilization?

It seems all Oly bodies have IS built in, whilst Panny offers IS in some of their zoom lens, none of their pancake/primes.

Would lack of IS be a deal breaker for you?

I'm coming from a P&S and worried about not having IS.
Will have the G3 + 14-42mm but looking possibly towards G3 + 20mm = no IS.

Opinions appreciated!
 
Never been a problem for me, just stay at a sensible shutter speed or use a tripod/monopod/lean on a wall :)
 
Not needed when using a tripod but very useful when light is limited
 
On slower lenses such as those from F4.5 onwards image stabilisation is handy, on faster lenses such as those F2.8 and under I'm not worried about having it at all.

I would take a larger aperture (ie F2.8) over image stabilisation any day.
 
If you can easily manage your shutter speed it is ok without, if you can't I'd prefer some stabilisation. Regardless of which it does help on the longer zooms.
 
The only time I've ever needed IS (VR in my case) was with long lenses, mainly because I shoot a lot of trout fishing from boats and it's a helping hand in a situation that's tricky enough at the best of times :)

On short lenses it possibly has its uses but I can live without it on my current lens line-up. I think now that cameras are offering highly useable high ISOs (6400 upwards), it's probably lessening the need for VR/IS in many cases...
 
I could use IS when I have a 300mm Canon FD lens on the front of my Panny G2.

Most of the rest of the time I can get away without. The G2's built in EVF (without spending £200 on top of the cost of an EP-2) was more important.
 
I only really use IS when I am using my really slow (F5.6 @ 300) 70-300 lens, as I do little low light stuff.
If you plan on doing much indoor shooting with not great light and slow lenses you may find IS a necessity.
 
I currently use a Pentax K5 which has inbody IS and it's a feature I wouldn't be without. I've been in many situations where a tripod just wasn't feasible and without IS the shot just wouldn't have been possible. IS is great too when combined with a monopod whilst hiking as I find it can make a significant difference in the sharpeness of the final shot.

Simon
 
IS Means sod all to me, I never noticed a difference when using an E520, and I don't notice the difference using the 14-45mm on the GH1 vs 135mm on 2xTC on the GH1 without stabilisation.
 
1/30s at 600mm on a 1.6x crop. Don't think I'd have got this without IS...

Barn%20Owl%2020090909%20001-2.jpg
 
Last edited:
c_man said:
Hi All,

How strongly do you rate Image Stabilization?

It seems all Oly bodies have IS built in, whilst Panny offers IS in some of their zoom lens, none of their pancake/primes.

Would lack of IS be a deal breaker for you?

I'm coming from a P&S and worried about not having IS.
Will have the G3 + 14-42mm but looking possibly towards G3 + 20mm = no IS.

Opinions appreciated!
Click to expand...

With the G3's improved ISO and the lenses you're going to use you won't need any IS.
 
Danny_Two said:
With the G3's improved ISO and the lenses you're going to use you won't need any IS.
Click to expand...

You seem so sure!

Take a look at this video from 3min 02secs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVASN_QtCn0

Granted, its of a Canon S95.

However, from 3min02sec we can see a sample video, first with IS enabled, secondly with IS disabled.

The difference is huge.
Will I see similar results with the G3 and 20mm/f1.7?

That is what I'm worried about... and I also hope to record video with the G3.
 
For low light shooting it's great, saves having to haul a tripod round a lot of the time. It allows me to keep the iso down as well. I've taken a number of photos that I probably couldn't have got without vr, or would have been a lot noisier. Not a deal breaker for me though as nikon stabilise their lenses and not the bodies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top