PopPhoto.com -- The online home of American Photo and Popular Photography & Imaging magazine

Free Newsletter: Camera reviews,
lens tests, photo news and more!
   

Subscribe

Popular Photography American Photo

My Photo

January 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    

« From The Keppler Files: April, 1988 | Main | From The Keppler Files: May, 1993 »

April 09, 2007

Comments

Rudy Mack

Leica has announced image stabilized lenses for the four-thirds mount. Will they be compatable with the Olympus E510? Will you get a choice of stabilization modes. Will they work together?
You can use one system or the other but not at th same time
HK

Michael Schnierle

Mr. Keppler muses: "I wonder whether Canon gave a thought to this system [sensor based stabilization] before opting for in-lens stabilization." I doubt it. Canon, and apparently Nikon, started by making a stabilization system that would work on film cameras as well as digital. Digital was only starting to make headway in 1995. I can't imagine how you could juggle the frame of film that was behind the shutter to counteract camera shake. Of course, the downside of lens based stabilization is that you have to buy much more expensive lenses to get the benefit.

Leo

I would like to know which latest cameras "are providing equivalent ISO speeds of 1600 or 3200 with virtually no loss in image quality"?

Read D40X Nikon test May Pop Photo, page 68
HK

Neil Harrington

While not technically a form of image stabilization, the Best Shot Selector feature that Nikon has in all current Coolpix models works remarkably well as a substitute. With BSS turned on the camera takes up to 10 shots in burst mode and saves only the sharpest one. Since sharpness varies greatly from shot to shot at slow shutter speeds hand held, this really does provide a kind of "poor man's image stabilization." Probably wouldn't be practical in digital SLRs though.

paul castenholz

I love Herb Keppler. Whatever new systems that Canon, Nikon and the others use and thus obsolete the present technology, please Pop Photo, don't change anything about Herb, and certainly keep him writing in the manner he has been using for so many years. To me, he is the mainstay of your magazine and the first page I turn to each month is Herb's page!

Jesse Shapiro

Michael Schnierle wrote:

"Of course, the downside of lens based stabilization is that you have to buy much more expensive lenses to get the benefit."

Not true! Sony's 70-200 f/2.8 costs $2300, whilst Nikon's version with VR comes in at $1600. That's a pretty significant difference.

Eric

The benefit of in-lens stabilization (I have the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR and the 105 2.8 Micro VR and love them to death!) is that the system can be optimized for that single lens. Putting it in the camera body negates that benefit.

I find VR much more handy as the focal length gets longer. With my 70-200 VR, if I brace myself, I can hand-hold it at 1/15 sec. at 200 mm regularly. But being a pro for 20 years, I have a lot of pre-VR practice under my belt!

As for the question of high ISO being so good we won't need IS/VR? For me the answer is the black cat in the coal mine. Only it's 1900 meters underground in an emerald mine in Colombia with available light. The answer is, bring on the VR!

The comments to this entry are closed.