Generally DSLR cameras have dealt with image stabilisation by bulding this feature into the lens rather than the camera. The concensus is that this produces a more stable image and also alows you to decide if you want to have that feature or not. Different camera manutacturers have different name for it. Canon call it IS and Nikon use the term VR. So you can buy a Nikon 2.8 70-200mm VR lens which will allow you to hand hold this at about 2 stops better than without the VR. Of course the VR versions cost more than no VR lenses..

Clwyd - Pixcellence Wedding Photographer London.

Http://www.pixcellence.co.uk/http://www.pixcellenceweddings.comhttp://www.pixcellenceweddings.blogspot.com..

I'm new to dslrs but Pentax has in body image stabilization in the k100d and k10d. The k110d is the 100 but without the image stabilization. I also see that the Olympus E-500 has in body stabilization but I'm not sure about their others..

The pentax has a big switch right next to the view screen to turn the stabilization on or off. I can only assume the olympus does too...

Felix49 wrote:.

Hello I am new to your site "and some of the terms". I have neverhad the time to get into 35mm I did manage to get a half decentunderstanding of photography though. I'am trying to figure out whatcamera I should get?.

This is always a tough question.. if you are looking at dSLR's, *all* of the options are good.. I use Canon b/c that's the route I started on...

I tried a digital SLR out the other day I like the speed of thefps and other options that are on it, but is there a Digital SLRthat has an on off option for the camera to stabilize an image likethe common digital cameras people have?Is there normal digital cameras that is fast in fps and takesmultiple pictures as an option like an SLR fps?.

'normal' dc's often have a movie mode (lower res) at 15 or 24 fps, much faster than any dSLR... as mentioned, stabilisation (IS, VR) is often found in lenses, rather than in camera body, Sony is in body, and I think Olympus (could be wrong on the latter).. and the lenses all have an on/off switch...

I have been told that I can't have both worlds that they justdon't make cameras that can do it..

Both worlds.. are different.. and have different uses... *use both*!.

Thank you for any advice you may haveFelix..

Photography is fun... developing is a bore..

Cheers,S.**My XT IS Full Frame APS-C/FF of course!*****So is my 5D 35mm/FF**..

Is there a Digital SLRthat has an on off option for the camera to stabilize an image likethe common digital cameras people have?.

Yes. Olympus E510, Sony Alpha, or any Pentax DSLR..

Is there normal digital cameras that is fast in fps and takesmultiple pictures as an option like an SLR fps?.

There are plenty of compact cameras that will take 3 frames per second like an SLR. It's just that they usually run out of puff after a couple of seconds, whereas a DSLR can keep firing away for up to 20-30 shots at 3 frames per second, depending on the model..

Androohttp://Androo.smugmug.com..

You cannot have the best of both worlds..

Contrary to an earlier post, IS is not mainly in the lenses of DSLR. There's a clear move to make IS in-body on entry level DSLRs. I think the current view is that IS is a little more effective ( only a little ) when built into a lens..

You can usually turn IS off - there are situations where it's counterproductive and a tripod is better. Some cameras have a couple of IS modes - one for normal shots, one intended for panning-type shots..

A couple of questions to ask yourself..

Do you need fast continuous shooting or just a burst of fast shooting ? There is a difference ( in price level ! )..

Do you have lens you want to keep - in other words, do you need a particular mount system ? That could define your choice a lot more clearly..

Do you usually use a tripod ? If so you probably don't need IS..

In the digital age don't have developing, and while you can get away without developing for the majority of images, we have raw files and post-processing in the digital age, should you feel the need to tweak that image. Actually one of the greatest benefits of going digital is that it allows you to post process those important images - it really does add considerably to control. No need to rush into this, but it's a very useful aspect of digital cameras. You can adjust exposure, colour, white balance and a host of other details from the comfort of a chair using a mouse. And it's not as messy as developing !.

I'll say what follows with the rider that you'd be better of with a DSLR if you can get one. If you DO NOT want to get a DSLR and simply want a DSLR-like feel then the Fuji S9100/9600 is worth a look. It uses a small sensor, like a compact, so it has much higher noise levels than a DSLR, and it certainly won't do you if you want to shoot continuous high speed action. But I'd recommend any entry level DSLR to you over it if you can swing the cash..

StephenG.

Fuji S9600Fuji S5200Fuji F30Fuji E900Canon A710ISPCLinuxOS..

If you are able to put up with the awkwardness of using a the old fashioned DSLR format (second guessing the exposure etc, and only being able to judge how well after the shot has been taken, because there isn't live preview EVF or LCD as on a small digicam) then you can get much better image quality with good lenses..

The current bridge cameras have all been dummed down. For example my old Minolta D7i could shoot 7fps in UHS mode (admittedly only at 2mp), whereas my current Fuji 9100 can manage 1.5fps and the Minolta 5D DSLR 3fps. You'll need to start in medium price DSLR territory with the Canon 30D or Nikon D200 to get 5fps, and they'll make you buy expensive image stabilised lesnses too..

For IS or Anti shake in the camera itself so every lens benefits, consider Pentax and Sony, Olympus too if you like the 4:3 system..

John.Please visit me at:http://www.pbase.com/johnfr/backtothebridgehttp://www.pbase.com/johnfr..

Michael Probert wrote:.

Generally DSLR cameras have dealt with image stabilisation bybulding this feature into the lens rather than the camera. Theconcensus is that this produces a more stable image and also alowsyou to decide if you want to have that feature or not. Differentcamera manutacturers have different name for it. Canon call it ISand Nikon use the term VR. So you can buy a Nikon 2.8 70-200mm VRlens which will allow you to hand hold this at about 2 stops betterthan without the VR. Of course the VR versions cost more than no VRlenses..

This would be the "Bad Advice" while Canon and Nikon make excellent cameras, some of thier users like to pretend they are the only options..

Generally Canon and Nikon because they started with Film have stabilization in the lens. More Generally Sony (based on Minolta technology), Pentax, and Olympus all have put the stabilization in the body so it works with ALL thier lenses, not just a few..

I have with the Minolta regularly with my less than steady hands taken shots with three stops lower shutter speed. That means on a shot that sould need 1/90s I have gotten beautiful sharp shots at 1/13s. Both systems can work very well..

On this board people will usually favor the camera system they chose. In truth you should get good images from any of them these days. But sometimes you will get bad advice if someone manages to assume Canon and Nikon are your only options..

Ken - KM 5Dhttp://www.cascadephotoworks.com..

John farrar wrote:.

If you are able to put up with the awkwardness of using a the oldfashioned DSLR format (second guessing the exposure etc, and onlybeing able to judge how well after the shot has been taken, becausethere isn't live preview EVF or LCD as on a small digicam) then youcan get much better image quality with good lenses..

Old FAshioned? Ummm live preveiw puts what you see in the view finder on an LCD... it doesn't show you what the final expsure will be, (aer some simluaring this now?). DLSRs typcally give your faster response and better images than most of the P&Ss Also an optical viewfinder gives you are the dynamice range of your eye to view the images. Video is not going to do that. Live view has some value.. but real viewfinders are not old fashioned..

Ken - KM 5Dhttp://www.cascadephotoworks.com..

Hi, Ken. The crucial thing with live preview is that at the very least it shows you how far you're going in the right direction with +/- EV and other changes. I have a love/hate relationship with SLRs and it has actually become more polarised since the advent of mainstream digital photography. One day they're the bees knees, another a clunky old dinosaur, but I do know when they really need to be used and appreciate the eventual better IQ that can be the end result. Actually I'd like an overlaid live histogram on the optical viewfinder, kind of like a H.U.D., but if they could afford to go back to making an EVF of the high standard that was in the K-M A2 then an EVIL camera would suffice. But whatever they do with SLR sized cameras, the little Canon s400 or something similar will always have it's place..

John.Please visit me at:http://www.pbase.com/johnfr/backtothebridgehttp://www.pbase.com/johnfr..

Michael Probert wrote:.

Generally DSLR cameras have dealt with image stabilisation bybulding this feature into the lens rather than the camera..

Actually, I contest your statement. Pentax, Sony and Olympus all deal with image stabilization by shifting the sensor. Both systems are effective and have different strengths. In-camera is more cost-effective and can work with any lens attached. In-lens allows panning..

Mikehttp://www.michaelhamilton.ca Photobloghttp://www.shuttersniped.com Camera Gear Auctions..

Well it wasn't really advice, just saying that the majority of DSLR cameras out there put thier image stabiliers in the lens. Yes that means Canon and Nikon because they dominate this market. This does not mean that I am suggesting you go out and buy a Canon or a Nikon..

I do agree that there are other ways of doing this and more recent entry level systems have started to put this technology into the camera body. It was not my intention to push the Canon/Nikon world, but I have read articles and commentry that seems to indicate that the technology works better in the lens, but this may no longer be true with more modern technology..

Also there is a vested interest from Canon and Nikon who would love to sell you those very expensive lenses. That market would go away if they released a camera body that made all of their lenses image stabalised..

I think that the trend is obviously to move this technology into the camera body and both Nikon and Canon will probably release entry level bodies with this facility. Once it is in this sector it will move up to the pro level bodies as well..

Clwyd - Pixcellence Wedding Photographer London.

Http://www.pixcellence.co.uk/http://www.pixcellenceweddings.comhttp://www.pixcellenceweddings.blogspot.com..

Michael Probert wrote:.

Well it wasn't really advice, just saying that the majority of DSLRcameras out there put thier image stabiliers in the lens. Yes thatmeans Canon and Nikon because they dominate this market. This doesnot mean that I am suggesting you go out and buy a Canon or a Nikon..

I do agree that there are other ways of doing this and more recententry level systems have started to put this technology into thecamera body. It was not my intention to push the Canon/Nikon world,but I have read articles and commentry that seems to indicate thatthe technology works better in the lens, but this may no longer betrue with more modern technology..

Also there is a vested interest from Canon and Nikon who would loveto sell you those very expensive lenses. That market would go awayif they released a camera body that made all of their lenses imagestabalised..

I think that the trend is obviously to move this technology intothe camera body and both Nikon and Canon will probably releaseentry level bodies with this facility. Once it is in this sector itwill move up to the pro level bodies as well..

FYI the first stablized DSLR body was the Konica Minolta 7D, hardly an entry level camera. Nor is the Pentax K10D an entry level camera..

Ken - KM 5Dhttp://www.cascadephotoworks.com..

The so-called "live review" is neither live nor a preview. The image displayed comes after it's scanned, processed then sent for display. It's assuredly not live. That's immediately obvious when trying to deal with a dynamic and unpredictable subject. "Preview?" No. It's showing you what was happening before, as it was scanned, then processed, then displayed.



A dslr slows down the light (about an inch extra travel distance at 186,0000 miles per second, that's not much delay) by requiring it to bounce off a couple of mirrors and/or through a penta prismShoot the picture if you want it. If you like it, you got it. No preview, no going forward with another, you've got it. Next!.

There's no substantive technical evidence establishing whther the in-body or in-lens stabilization procees are "best." With limited "kit" purchases, in-body systems will be cheaper. They will always (perhaps a few esoteric exceptions) apply stabilization to the lenses in use - and it's possible to switch it off. Lens based systems may be less expensive when you begin to look to more exensive or specific comparable lenses, etc. Some folks have argues the extra elements degrade the image a tad, some argue it slows focus at times. I'd suggest you are out in the flats of the bell curve of all users if those are issues for you...