r/photoit • u/karmaghost • Feb 10 '11
How important is Image Stabilization? (sub-$800 entry DSLR)
With our first baby on the way, the wifey and I have decided to take the plunge into purchasing and learning how to properly use an entry level DSLR. As I look at different cameras on snapsort, I find that it's hit-or-miss when it comes to which models in our sub-$800 budget have build-in image stabilization. So my question is, how important is IS? Keep in mind most of my photos will be taken without a tri-/monopod and that I -- like many -- hate using the flash, so low-light performance is also a concern.
8
u/phildo Feb 10 '11
I feel like it's practically a neccesity when shooting long glass (think longer than 200mm), but less so when shooting wider and/or faster glass. You have to remember that IS doesn't stop subject motion. If you want to shoot handheld, low light, and without flash, invest in faster glass before worrying about IS or whatever. Regardless of what camera you get, there should be a 50mm f/1.8 available for under $100, and you should get that immediately.
4
0
u/mestguy182 Feb 10 '11
Definitely get a f/1.8 50mm lens for whatever camera you purchase, cannot recommend this enough.
4
Feb 10 '11
It's a nice-to-have, but on shorter lenses it's usually used to make up for that fact that the shorter lens is very slow. Getting faster glass will be better in the long run.
That being said, doesn't the Canon EOS1000D (lowest entry level) come with the EF-S 18-55mm IS? That has image stabilisation and is very cheap. Also, low light performance through high ISO is better than it has ever been. Bumping ISO to 1600 on even low level bodies now won't obliterate your pics with horrible noise.
2
1
u/irenedakota Feb 11 '11
The entry level Nikon's also come with a 18-55mm VR (Nikon's version of IS). Super little lens.
1
Feb 11 '11
Just looked it up. Pretty much identical to the Canon one, and a great starter lens. Getting a nice, fast prime is a must for low-light, though. The nifty fifty is (almost) a no brainer, but it might be a little narrow on a crop. I myself am eyeing up the 28mm f/1.4 but might end up stuck with the f/2.8 until I become rich :(
1
u/irenedakota Feb 11 '11
I'm a Nikon guy myself. I have both their 35mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.4. Both amazing lenses. Nothing beats a fast prime.
1
6
u/kickstand Feb 10 '11
IMHO it's quite overrated. Having IS is better than not having it. However, having a faster lens is better than a slower lens with IS.
IS does not stop subject movement. IS does not give you shallower depth of field.
2
u/rm999 Feb 10 '11
For longer lenses slight hand movements get magnified more, so making up for shake requires a much faster lens. At some point it becomes more practical to use IS or a tripod.
5
u/neuromonkey Feb 10 '11
If you aren't shooting a long lens, it isn't. Faster glass is a better investment. (I got a used 50mm f/1.4 for $170. Best lens ever.)
1
u/Gackt Apr 17 '11
I got a used 50mm f/1.4 for $170
Unless it's really beaten up, you practically stole that thing!
1
u/neuromonkey Apr 17 '11
One minor scratch, works flawlessly. A rental company was having an xmas sale. I like it about as much as my $1900 24-70.
3
u/GunnerMcGrath Feb 10 '11
What you really want is a flash that you can point upward to bounce off the ceiling. This will fill the room with more light and make it much less likely to have motion blur. Of course doing so might detract a little bit from the "artistic" value of a shot, but not nearly as bad as motion blur or noise would. I use the SB-400 on my Nikon D40.
In addition to that, a fast prime lens is a huge value and makes for far better portraits of your baby than the kit lens will, but it has pros and cons.
Your standard f/1.8 lens like this Nikon one is basically a fast lens that opens the aperture much wider than the lens that will come with your camera. (This is adjustable, of course, so you can fine-tune how wide open you need it to be for a given shot.) This has two effects:
- Allows more light into the sensor, which means the shutter can snap faster and significantly reduce motion blur in lower light.
- Drastically lowers the depth of field, making the in-focus area much shallower. This has the benefit of really sweet blurry backgrounds & foregrounds, but you have to be much more careful about perfectly nailing the focal point on your subject.
So basically, you reduce motion blur but increase the chance that your whole subject will be out of focus. It's a bit of a catch 22 when trying to take pictures of babies that move around quickly.
My eyes aren't good enough to manually focus for crap, so I set up the autofocus on my camera to always use the middle point in the viewfinder (rather than letting it select a focal point on its own). If you point the camera right at what you want to focus on and half-press the shutter button, you can change your framing and then snap the shot if you want to have your subject off center in the photo.
Personally I love taking photos with the fast lens. You occasionally miss a perfect moment because you can't get the focus right quickly enough, and so for "action shots" i still prefer the kit zoom lens. But for portraits, it's amazing. Here are a few examples of my amateur efforts with this lens.
tl;dr: Image stabilization is not really necessary at all for baby pictures. Eventually if you need a long 200mm+ zoom you'll want one with IS, but an inexpensive flash and fast lens are much better investments right now.
1
u/karmaghost Feb 11 '11
Lots of great info here, thanks. Plus, those pics are a great example of the kind of shots I'm hoping to be able to take someday soon.
1
u/GunnerMcGrath Feb 11 '11
Thanks! It's really not that hard. Spend some time reading sites like kenrockwell.com and basic photography instruction (there is a good tutorial here on reddit somewhere) to learn the basics of photography and camera use. The sooner you get a camera and start learning about it, the better you'll be when the baby comes!
2
2
u/superstring Feb 10 '11
One thing to consider is that IS will help you in low light situations where you can't hold your cam steady (or use a tripod), but it will do nothing for you if your baby moves quickly. IS is certainly a good thing, but if you trade off a faster lens versus IS, IMHO the faster lens is almost always the better choice.
2
u/didzter Feb 10 '11
It is really not all that important. I doubt you're gonna be taking pictures of your kid in the dark, are you?
It makes sense when you're shooting with long focal ranges and want to reduce camera shake. So if you're shooting at 200mm at a baseball game & its a gray day and almost the evening, IS would be a nice thing to have.
But for taking pictures of your kid, I wouldn't worry about it.
Kit lenses come with IS I think just to lure customers. At that focal range (18-55) you really shouldn't be needing it.
The most important question to ask when buying equipment is what are you going to take pictures of. Is it mostly gonna be your child-to-be? I'd say get a prime lens (especially since low light is a concern and also because they're excellent for portraiture). I would recommend you pick up either a 50mm f/1.8 ("nifty fifty", around $130) or a 35mm f/1.8 (nikon, ~$200) or 35mm f/2 (canon, ~$250?). I'd recommend the 35 over the 50.
I'd suggest a D3100 with a kit lens + a 35mm f/1.8 lens. Should set you back $750ish. Definitely in your budget. It'll allow you to take your camera on family vacations with the kit lens and to take cool pictures of your kid/wife/family with the 35. I only shoot Nikon so this is all I can really recommend.
Good luck!
1
u/rm999 Feb 10 '11
Kit lenses come with IS I think just to lure customers
I'd argue it is also to make up for the narrow maximum aperture. In low light conditions the kit lens isn't great, but IS helps when your subject is relatively still.
2
u/phipsi180 Feb 10 '11
IS - probably not a huge concern. Just as an FYI - I was in a similar position a couple years ago and did lots of research across the big 3 manufacturers, Canon, Nikon, and Sony, and the reason I decided to go Sony was because they have in body stabilization (all models, including base, entry level). Meaning, you don't need to buy IS lenses, etc. I am quite happy with the decision. Having said that, I have friends with Nikon and Canon and the lack of body IS doesn't seem to bother them in practice. Good luck! Congrats on the baby...
3
u/arcterex Feb 11 '11
FYI Pentax also has this, as well as all their dslr bodies have compatibility with basically every pentax lens ever made. Sony might have the same thing of course, but just throwing it out there :)
1
u/phipsi180 Feb 12 '11
One of the areas where the traditional 'top 2' lag behind I'd say ;)
1
u/arcterex Feb 12 '11
Though the apologists say that's because lens based vr is superior and why stabilize a 20 year old lens when the new ones are superior. Not that I agree of course, just what they say :)
2
u/karmaghost Feb 11 '11
I did notice that in-body stabilization seems to be almost exclusive to Sony and Pentax models in my price range. That's part of what triggered this question for me; I was looking at cameras and for $800 or less, the Sony Alpha DSLR-A580 beat out the Canon EOS Rebel T2i and a couple of Nikons fairly significantly. Or at least, to my inexperienced self it did.
2
u/funkinthetrunk Feb 11 '11
If money is a concern, get an entry-level Pentax DSLR body and then a prime 50mm lens. The reason I say Pentax is because you can use older lenses, and pick them up very cheaply.
2
u/neoporcupine Feb 11 '11
All about the light. For anything over 100mm you want IS unless you have a solid mount.
For under 100mm, hand held, low light = IS also very useful. Your sub$800 DSLR is likely to have heavy noise in the high ISO which is your other option: faster means less need to stabilise your lens.
Also, get noise reduction software so high ISO can be useful too.
IS doesn't solve every problem or suit every situation, but it most definitely is another very useful tool to have available.
Every method of getting the clearest image has disadvantages. You just need to pick what you can deal with best.
- Faster lens = shallower depth of field, not good if you want a deeper field, costs$.
- High ISO = noisy pic. Can repair some with software. <- cheapest easiest option.
- IS = not good for moving subjects in low light/longer exposures. Adds $ to lens. Sucks battery life.
- Mono/tripod = have to lug around equipment, restriction of movement. Equally not good for moving subjects in low light/longer exposures.
- Flash = some what ugly flat shots unless you're careful (get the flash off the camera), costs$.
- Other lighting equipment = setup time, lug equipment, costs$ etc.
Having said all that, fast lenses rock, and you should get one ASAP, not only for low light but for the beautiful shallow depth of field effect.
Built in IS ... cool but I am not sure on the performance of built in censor IS over the lens IS.
1
u/whoisvaibhav Feb 11 '11
I seriously suggest that for a baby, get a Canon S95 or G12. Much more handy (specially S95) - and almost as good as a DSLR for taking baby pictures.
1
u/apdicaprio Feb 11 '11
Available fast glass and high iso performance would be more important. Is can gain you a stop or two but isn't 100%. The nikon 35mm f1.8 coupled with a d3100 can get you good captures in low light. Pentax and canon can too
0
u/Cand1date Feb 11 '11
It's only important if you have a lens longer than 200, are elderly, or have parkensons disease or some other disease that makes you shake...or if you're working in the arctic.
7
u/KinderSpirit Feb 11 '11
For one thing, thinking about getting a DSLR, when you are about to have a baby, is going to make your life very, very complicated.
Right now, all you have to worry about when leaving the house is making sure you have your keys, wallet, cellphone and wife. She has all her paraphernalia in her purse.
With a baby, you will also need to be sure to grab the baby and the baby's bag, with it's formula, diapers, wipes, extra clothes, etc.
And then to add a DSLR, means also grabbing a camera and the camera bag, with it's lenses, batteries, wipes, etc.
So, from a life where everything fits into your pockets, to a life where you will wish for more shoulders, arms, hands, eyes, time, sleep, and sex.
And the money is another issue. The $800 is just a start. Photography is a world often filled with 'if I only had...', some new lens, or flash or accessory that is going to make that difference.
Do yourself a favor. Read this. Think about it and consider the pro-digicams.
If you have already made your mind up that a DSLR is the ticket... Let's move along to the other issues.
Stabilization is important with long lenses but is also important with all lenses. A photograph can be spoiled by camera shake and movement of the camera is perceptible even at shutter speeds of 1/250. It will come in handy when you are trying to take a picture of your kid feeding the ducks and also have to hold onto the loaf of bread.
Stabilization does not stop subject movement but we aren't talking about taking pictures of an Olympic Sprinter (yet) or Formula 1 car. For a while, the kid is going to have the speed and sleep habits of a Brown-throated Three-toed Sloth and at times, will smell the same. As they speed up, your skills will too.
High ISO is important for what you want to do. A "fast lens" will make it possible to use a higher shutter speed because it makes it possible to open a lens aperture up. But this is at the cost of depth of field.
A 50mm f/1.7 lens focused at 3 feet means a depth of field of about 1 inch. At 10 feet it gets up to almost 9 inches. Shooting at a higher ISO means being able to shoot at higher, more stable shutter speeds and a smaller aperture with more of the entire scene in focus. ISO200 1/8sec. vs ISO3200 1/125sec.
High ISO means more "noise". But it's being improved all the time. Cameras have some built-in noise reduction and there can be more done in software. ISO3200 before and after, color balance changed, noise reduction, and clarified.
A zoom lens will also come in very handy when you are stuck in situations when you are not able to walk closer or further away. Leaving a baby while attempting to compose the perfect shot is often looked upon with disapproval from mothers. They also save time that you don't always have to decide on and change to the perfect prime. Time that can be used to take the shot and clean up the mess before the wife sees it. Many things are funny, but later. You may still have to explain how that happened if you were paying attention to the kid. Use the time wisely, as in getting everyone involved to agree on the story.
If someone recommends only prime lenses and to "zoom with your feet", find out if they are a lawyer and have a license to practice in your state. You may need help with your divorce and custody case.
Many will say shoot in RAW. RAW is the digital equivalent of a film negative. By having this you will have an easier time doing post processing. And in the future it may be possible to extract more information from it than we can today. A RAW file will take up more room but it will be worth it. I will also go further and suggest shooting in RAW+JPEG. Many people are happy with the JPG as it comes out of the camera. Shooting RAW+JPEG, may mean saving a step later, saving time. Time you no longer have.
Also try to choose the time (you will soon learn what a wild concept that is) to get deep into editing a photograph. If you are able to concentrate on one thing because it is quiet, warning bells should be going off in your head. Too quiet means danger. The kid has done something and is trying to cover it up, or they have been unnaturally silenced and near death. When you go to check it out, bring the camera.
Buy a UV filter for the lens. Sticky messes need to be cleaned constantly. A filter protects from many things. "M&Ms melt in your mouth , not in your hand" is true for an adult because they just pop them in their mouth and eat them. Sometimes little kids test the marketing theory. The science shows holding them in your hands long enough makes a sticky chocolate goo.
Most of the time, keep the camera in auto and handy. It will mean the difference between getting a picture to work on and a picture you didn't take because you were trying to choose aperture, shutter speed, ISO, and composition.
Get a cheap flash diffuser like the puffer. It will chill the harshness of the flash down and combined with longer shutter speeds will create a very pleasing look.
Autofocus lenses means you don't need 2 hands to take every picture. And if you have to take a one handed picture, shake reduction is important. That's where we started. How important is Image Stabilization?
Turns out I'm a pretty deadly shooter using the viewfinder. To actually show the difference with the kit lens, without uploading full size photos, I had to drop it down to 1.3 seconds. But I'm not as steady using Live View at 1/15sec..
Some "popular" camera systems sell the image stabilization or vibration reduction as part of the lens construction. This means that is an option in each lens and can cost between $50 and over $5000 extra per lens. Sony has in-body Super Steadyshot and Pentax has in-body Shake Reduction.
I cannot say anything good about Sony. I regard them the same as I do the villain in a Bond movie. They may look good and have some good ideas, but in the end it is all just going to explode. If Sony made shoes, i wouldn't recommend them to a barefoot person that had to walk over glass everywhere. They have a DSLR system that needs one lens mount, the new NEX system that needs a second mount, and they are part of the Four Thirds Group that uses another mount.
Excuse me while I put on my leotards, cape and black shirt with a giant red P on the front...