cheapest camera with image stabilization?

[carmatic]

by far the biggest problem i have with my pictures is the motion blur... i need slow shutter times for some photographic effects and taking a tripod with me isnt an option, so the camera has to keep its view straight somehow...

are there cameras out there which are focused on optical image stabilization? i've seen a lens piece with a motion compensating lens in a store catalog, and in another store i've found a camea with 'sensor shift image stabilization' ... shaking that camera makes a slight rattling noise, i assume its the ccd inside being held loosely

anyway, i am not a pro photographer, and i would like to focus my spending on solving my blurry pictures problem... which cameras would you suggest?

[Dick Montage]

I'd concentrate more on keeping yourself stable. Remember, arms in!

[carmatic]

I'd concentrate more on keeping yourself stable.??Remember, arms in!

i've tried that and its still not helping good enough for the night shots

the camera needs to do something on its end for me

[zivan56]

You can try those low end cameras with IS. The Canon Axxx IS series comes to mind for ~$100...although it can't match the IS on SLR lenses.

[Argote]

I'd find something with IS, a nice aperture lens and possibly good higher ISO performance. I'm assuming you want a Point and Shoot camera so I'll point you to the Panasonic Lumix line or the Canon PowerShots.

[carmatic]

is it like the entire Panasonic Lumix line has optical image stabilization?

also, how conceivable is it that a point and shoot could produce stabler images than a slr with a stabilized lens... i will spend more if i have to

[Ambroos]

My Sony Alpha A200 has IS (in-body, so it makes some noise at slow shutter speeds) and to be honest, it doesn't help that much. It can filter out very small movements, but the 'center' of your moves will always have to be the same. If you shake a little bit to the left after 1s and for the next 2s you don't go back to the right (which is very probable since it's such a small difference) you will still get a blurry shot.

[carmatic]

also another thing for all you experienced photographers... will the camera's weight help you hold it still??

im thinking of ordering over the internet, but if the ergonomics of the camera is important in getting a non-blurry shot, i might have to physically go to a shop and start trying out cameras

[carmatic]

so i've decided that i might be buying a Fujitsu S1600 after getting my hands on it on the store... i thought that holding something chunkier than a point and shoot would help with stopping my hands from jittering the camera so much in the first place...?

plus this type of camera has a bigger lens, that's got to be good for low light which is another one of my photography habits

the S1600 cheaper than some of the really high end point and shoots too, but its image stabilization seems to drift more than those expensive point and shoots...?

[MR_Candyman]

I can't believe nobody's said this: IS will NOT help for night shots. You need a tripod, because you will be using such a long exposure. Ambroos touched on it a bit, that IS is really just to take out a momentary jitter, like from a small gust of wind or a tiny shake, it is NOT meant to compensate for not being steady and for not using a tripod. If you can't use a tripod, use a monopod, which will do a lot more for you than IS will at night (or even during the day for that matter). You develop your stability by breath control and practice, nothing can compensate for those. If you're doing night shots though, you really should be using a tripod, because you will blur most of your shots with or without IS.

*personally, I have no IS lenses. I keep borrowing ones from people and can never tell a difference. One, and only one of my friends swears by them, but I can't see why as he doesn't have a problem when he uses mine.

[Argote]

I though of the tripod thing but focused more on IS, and yes IS does help you for night shots, you get a couple of stops from it (i.e if your photos gt blurry at 1/30 of a second you can possibly do 1/8 now). It does help on my Alpha A200.

And no carmatic, a P&S doesn't take better low light photos than a DSLR

[carmatic]

is a Fujifilm S1600 also considered a point and shoot? it looks like this:

and it has exposure and aperture control... i thought that point and shoots are not supposed to have control over these?

for night shots, yeah i will have to find a platform to put my camera on .... im not planning on using IS with night shots, its a seperate interest of mine

where i do plan on using IS is in shots like this

i was hoping to be able to get a sharper detail in things like the ceiling and the decorations... while keeping the exposure long enough to blur people out if they move around

[Argote]

I think those are called "bridge cameras" and a DSLR is different not because it has Exposure and Aperture controls (which some P&S cameras do have, heck, some even have manual mode) but the fact that: a) you are able to change the lenses; b) you have a viewfinder that looks through the lens with a mirror

The photo you took is hard to take because of the relatively strong source of light in the middle. A longer exposure would have overblown that light even more. For a little extra detail IS will help you though a tripod would allow you to take that shot perfectly.

[crazzy88ss]

My Sony Alpha A200 has IS (in-body, so it makes some noise at slow shutter speeds) and to be honest, it doesn't help that much. It can filter out very small movements, but the 'center' of your moves will always have to be the same. If you shake a little bit to the left after 1s and for the next 2s you don't go back to the right (which is very probable since it's such a small difference) you will still get a blurry shot.

1.) image stabilization doesn't create noise at slow shutter speeds. High ISO creates noise.

2.) IS is not designed to help with long exposures. It's designed to help you shoot @ 200mm at 1/25 second instead of needing 1/200 second. Anything much slower than 1/25 and IS won't help as much as you want it to..

[carmatic]

the exposure time of that picture was 0.1333 seconds, surely that would have been within the realm of IS ? pictures like that are going to be quite typical of what i am shooting...?

by the way that was taken on a camera phone, so in a 'real' camera the contrast between light and dark wouldnt be as overblown

[craybox]

man that looks like the boss is gonna be pi**ed after that office party :)

[d4diesel]

have you considered a stringpod? you can make one yourself for a few bucks and its easy to carry in your pocket. I have tried this with my minoHD flip camera and it does wonders.

http://www.quickphotographytips.com/index.php/2009/03/06/stringpod-diy-pocket-sized-tripod-alternative/

[Argote]

have you considered a stringpod? you can make one yourself for a few bucks and its easy to carry in your pocket. I have tried this with my minoHD flip camera and it does wonders.

http://www.quickphot...od-alternative/

That is extremely interesting, I'll be making one of those soon.

[crazzy88ss]

the exposure time of that picture was 0.1333 seconds, surely that would have been within the realm of IS ? pictures like that are going to be quite typical of what i am shooting...?

by the way that was taken on a camera phone, so in a 'real' camera the contrast between light and dark wouldnt be as overblown

Depending on your focal length, .1333 seconds is indeed within the realm of IS.

[carmatic]

That is extremely interesting, I'll be making one of those soon.

you will notice that he is holding a fullsize camera i.e. a slr or bridge camera .... holding a point and shoot against the tension of the string would be quite tricky, not to mention if there is even anywhere to screw the bolt in a point and shoot at all...

i already have reasons to buy a fujifilm s1600, and this just adds yet another reason to buy it...

my other reasons for buying a bridge camera as opposed to a pocket point and shoot camera, is that the larger lens should mean more light being captured compared to a point and shoot, and this should translate to better low light performance

the bigger lens should also mean the aperture size can go up alot higher than a point and shoot, and i should be able to do the 'blurry background' effect on closeup shots

since i am holding it with my whole hand rather than my fingers, there should be less jittering motion... the added weight should also provide more intertia against jittering and make the image stabilization's job easier

also, the fujifilm s1600 runs on AA batteries and i could just carry a box full of batteries with me... those batteries get used in torchlights, my wireless mouse, my toothbrush, portable phone chargers, etc etc so its one less type of battery to carry around and worry about running out on

i dont see myself at the level of photography where i would use different lenses.. even not having a cover which automatically goes over the lens is worrying to me , since im not good with delicate things...

i would really like to focus my spending on eliminating the motion blur from my pictures, i am thinking that an over-fancy point and shoot would just have many features that i rarely if ever use, and a slr camera would be overkill for an amateur like me

[Argote]

you will notice that he is holding a fullsize camera i.e. a slr or bridge camera .... holding a point and shoot against the tension of the string would be quite tricky, not to mention if there is even anywhere to screw the bolt in a point and shoot at all...?

i already have reasons to buy a fujifilm s1600, and this just adds yet another reason to buy it...

my other reasons for buying a bridge camera as opposed to a pocket point and shoot camera, is that the larger lens should mean more light being captured compared to a point and shoot, and this should translate to better low light performance

the bigger lens should also mean the aperture size can go up alot higher than a point and shoot, and i should be able to do the 'blurry background' effect on closeup shots

since i am holding it with my whole hand rather than my fingers, there should be less jittering motion... the added weight should also provide more intertia against jittering and make the image stabilization's job easier

also, the fujifilm s1600 runs on AA batteries and i could just carry a box full of batteries with me... those batteries get used in torchlights, my wireless mouse, my toothbrush, portable phone chargers, etc etc so its one less type of battery to carry around and worry about running out on

i dont see myself at the level of photography where i would use different lenses.. even not having a cover which automatically goes over the lens is worrying to me , since im not good with delicate things...

i would really like to focus my spending on eliminating the motion blur from my pictures, i am thinking that an over-fancy point and shoot would just have many features that i rarely if ever use, and a slr camera would be overkill for an amateur like me

Aperture sizes are usually mentioned on all cameras (Even P&S) the Fuji S1600 seems to have a f/3.1-5.6 lens. The bigger lens is an advantage but it doesn't necessarily mean larger apertures. Read some reviews on the camera before buying (find a reputable source such as dpreview)

[Draconian Guppy]

Aperture sizes are usually mentioned on all cameras (Even P&S) the Fuji S1600 seems to have a f/3.1-5.6 lens. The bigger lens is an advantage but it doesn't necessarily mean larger apertures. Read some reviews on the camera before buying (find a reputable source such as dpreview)

Should mention, blurry backgrounds like the OP mentions, isn't necessarily based on aperture only, it's also based on lens length, position of the subject vrs background.

I know you probably don't want to hear this but...

Carmatic, IMO the $189 ( on amazon) is not worth for a bridge camera, though bridge cameras "fill the gap" in between dSLRs and P & S, they're just limited IMO, I was in your exact same same shoes a couple of years ago, and decided to save up for a D50 way back when. even though SLRs is a more expensive realm, kit lens in say a D40 o Canon XS should be 10 times better if not more than the fuji you posted. And believe or not, most low end dSLRS are designed just for that matter, to lower that gap between dSLR and P&S. You should consider saving and buying a dSLR with builtin image stabilization like pentax or sony, both with kit lens is around $500 and any other lens would be stabilized to some point. Pentax is a good road because the K-x as an example is compatible with every pentax lens made, this means cheap lens on ebay (whether long or wide, i've seen some go for $10). Then even IF the image stabilization on the pentax doesn't add enough stops, you can crank up the ISO to say 1600 and still get a decent shot without worrying about noise. We all start out as amateurs...

2 cents anyway.