Low light or image stabilizer - should I be concerned?
|
New member Username: Judyg013Post Number: 1 Registered: Jan-05 | Researching p/s digital. Moving away from my film SLR. I keep reading about image stabilizer - should I really be concerned about this feature? Taking the camera on a trip; want to use telephoto feature. Also, keep reading the EVF and LCDs wimp out in low light or bright sunlight. I can't even see the face of my pix phone in bright light - if this is what these cameras are like, then this isn't good news. What are the remedies? I've been comparing Olympus C-765, Canon S1, K-M Z3, K-M A2, Panasonic FZ20, etc. Thank you! |
|
Gold Member Username: Project6Post Number: 2292 Registered: Dec-03 | No remedies on the LCD in bright light, except maybe for a viewing hood. Those are add-ons that you can buy from decent camera dealers. It attaches to the LCD screen to block off stray light. I wouldn't rely too much on LD screens specially on long trips...they just eat too much battery power. The Canon is an excellent choice. Image stabilizer is good if you are taking plenty of pictures in low light on a moving platform. Other than that, you can always practice good form. |
|
New member Username: Judyg013Post Number: 2 Registered: Jan-05 | Ok, so sounds like the LCD on any of the digital cams will wimp out in bright light. I plan to use the viewfinder (not LCD) for framing up the pics, as my eyes can't focus pix using the LCD. Some of the viewfinders, I read, are hard to use in low light. What qualifies as "low light" - all indoor shots? or those in homes? restaurants? Cloudy days? Also, in some reviews, I read that some viewfinders are electronic and have x# of pixels, and others are optical. What's the difference? For image stabilizing - With my film SLR and a 200mm lens, I have to use tripod, or brace myself real good to get a non-blurry shot. Is image stabilizing with digital required at all levels of shooting, or just with telephoto features, as with SLR? Thanks for your input! |
|
Gold Member Username: Project6Post Number: 2297 Registered: Dec-03 | If you have experience with SLR and have developed good habits, then image stabilization is just an added benefit but not needed. It gives you a better advantage on long focal lengths. So, image stabilizing is not really required for digital shooting, but it is nice. The term low light is the same for digital as it is for SLR, the digital advantage is having the ability to change ISO settings when the situation warrants. What SLR were you using before the digital revolution?? here is an excellent site to read regarding the megapixel http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm and the 2 kinds of digital cameras http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2dig.htm |
|
New member Username: Judyg013Post Number: 3 Registered: Jan-05 | Thanks for the links. After reading Rockwell's opinions, makes me think I should stop looking and stay with my SLR (Pentax LX, all manual, about 15-20 yrs old). OR, aim for a less expensive p/s ditigal with fewer mpixels, but good image quality. OR, upgrade my SLR. My intention was to have a lighter weight camera; more automatic exposure - less fiddling; an on board flash; and I like the idea of being able to review recent shots. I agree with the opinions in the articles that film will probably be accessible alot longer than digital images made today with equipment that constantly gets obsoleted. I think my next stop should be to camera store to physically get a feel for the digitals and check up the real SLRs that are out there these days. |
|
Gold Member Username: Project6Post Number: 2322 Registered: Dec-03 | You are welcome. I still have my Nikon SLRs, but I haven't used them in a while since I got my D70. The results on digital are very satisfying...no waiting for the film to get back and you can always look at the results and adjust exposure on the fly. Good luck on your camera search  |