CThompson Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 I’m still looking at digital cameras, and found one that I like bar the fact it has no image stabilisation. I understand with a standard SLR camera, where the image is projected onto the film, being a relatively large area (compared to the smaller focal point with digital cameras), makes the image stabilisation more a requirement for digital cameras SLR look-alikes. I have found a camera I like, with a response time of 0.01 sec, ISO from 80-1600, 10.7 optical zoom, 9 million pixels, but… it has no image stabilisation. This is the Fujifilm FinPix S9500. I understand stabilisation can somewhat be negated in this camera by altering the ISO sensitivity, but I also understand that shots can be noisier when you increase the ISO, so don’t see this as a balancing factor even partially replacing image stabilisation. I also realise that I could use a tripod, in cases where it was required. But don’t know if this image stabilisation can be replaced as easily as this as a tripod is a hassle. Of course for close shots, I can always use a flash….anyway you get my point. Can anyone inform me how important image stabilisation is in digital cameras? Is it a bit of a gimmick? Or is it as relevant a point as lens size and pixel count? Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fman Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Craig Image stabilisation is a very useful feature, especially on cameras with high optical zoom lengths. If you plan to take a lot of telephoto shots, it's a feature that you will need, unless you have a tripod with you all the time. It's also useful at shorter focal lenghts, though in bright conditions, you will use faster shutter speeds, which overcomes the need for image stabilisation. I've been comparing the S9500 to the Panasonic FZ30, which does have image stabilisation. The S9500 is a very highly regarded competitor to tne FZ30, which does have image stabilisation. The S9500 is currently on sale for $599 (I think) at a well known national retailer of electrical and furnishings. Given the $250 price difference, how important is image stabilisation to you? Have a look through these threads (copied from Andy's thread), and look up Fuji Finepix S9000. For some reason, it's called a S9000 overseas. One of the sites shows photos take with and without stabilisation on the S9000 at longer focal lengths. Yes, the difference is noticeable. However, if you take steps to avoid camera shake (e.g. fast shutter speeds, using a tripod, not zooming to maximum, or bracing yourself against a solid object), it's manageable. http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/fz30.html http://www.megapixel.net/reviews/panasonic-fz30/fz30-gen.php http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz30/ This is the Fujifilm FinPix S9500. Craig, it's a FinePix. "FinPix" is what you get when you photograph your fishtank. It's getting harder to resist all the good offerings from camera manufacturers. The only certainty is that over time quality goes up and price comes down. How often does that happen? Cheers, Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CThompson Posted January 10, 2006 Author Share Posted January 10, 2006 Craig Image stabilisation is a very useful feature, especially on cameras with high optical zoom lengths. If you plan to take a lot of telephoto shots, it's a feature that you will need, unless you have a tripod with you all the time. It's also useful at shorter focal lenghts, though in bright conditions, you will use faster shutter speeds, which overcomes the need for image stabilisation. I've been comparing the S9500 to the Panasonic FZ30, which does have image stabilisation. The S9500 is a very highly regarded competitor to tne FZ30, which does have image stabilisation. The S9500 is currently on sale for $599 (I think) at a well known national retailer of electrical and furnishings. Given the $250 price difference, how important is image stabilisation to you? Have a look through these threads (copied from Andy's thread), and look up Fuji Finepix S9000. For some reason, it's called a S9000 overseas. One of the sites shows photos take with and without stabilisation on the S9000 at longer focal lengths. Yes, the difference is noticeable. However, if you take steps to avoid camera shake (e.g. fast shutter speeds, using a tripod, not zooming to maximum, or bracing yourself against a solid object), it's manageable. http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/fz30.html http://www.megapixel.net/reviews/panasonic-fz30/fz30-gen.php http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz30/ This is the Fujifilm FinPix S9500. Craig, it's a FinePix. "FinPix" is what you get when you photograph your fishtank. It's getting harder to resist all the good offerings from camera manufacturers. The only certainty is that over time quality goes up and price comes down. How often does that happen? Cheers, Frank ← Craig, it's a FinePix. "FinPix" is what you get when you photograph your fishtank. That gave me a chuckle Frank! "FinPix" is what you get when you have a slow response time. Thankyou for your very fine response, I have looked at the Pannasonic fz30, but found the camera to be massive (due to the lens), and yes think to it is better than the FinEEEPix S9500 (or S9500 in the US), but the size puts me off. I will have a look at the links you posted thanks again for your effort, you have explained very well. Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CThompson Posted January 10, 2006 Author Share Posted January 10, 2006 One of the sites shows photos take with and without stabilisation on the S9000 at longer focal lengths. Yes, the difference is noticeable. Couldn't find this Frank. Sorry, at work my time is limited, and I haven't got the time to do a more comprehensive seach. I would like to see it though. I would add too that the Panasonic camera doesn’t' have as good an ISO range as does the Fujifilm. Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.