Even though the sony has opitical image stabilization will it make that much of a difference. sd1000 would be the better choice The Sony also has a Zeiss lens and a ISO of 3200, does HD 1080i, but memory will cost you more $$$ On paper, these cameras look pretty similar except the Sony has image stabilization. The Canon has a better LCD, but that is not the tie-breaker.
Go here and click on "Read owner opinions" to see what people say about each camera.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_...
As far as image stabilization, it's the real deal. Here's my stock answer, but I've added another camera for you to consider at the bottom...
This technology is known as "image stabilization," "vibration reduction," "shake reduction," and "anti-shake" by the various manufacturers. It is "for real" and makes a visible difference most of the time. If you are using an average point and shoot camera without a monstrous zoom lens, you will see the difference in lower light situations where the camera will be using about 1/60th of a second or lower.
If you are using a telephoto lens, the effect will be noticeable at roughly anything slower than the inverse of the focal length, which used to be our standard for deciding when you should use a tripod. If it's a 200 mm lens, you will see the benefit of "IS" or "VR" at speeds of 1/200 or slower. If it's a 500 mm lens, you will see the benefit of "IS" or "VR" at speeds of 1/500 or slower. Actually, you will notice a difference at slower speeds than this, but I'd say that this threshold is where it can be called a distinct advantage. Also, I feel that "IS/VR" helps if you are using a point and shoot camera at arm's length as you compose in the LCD monitor. It is much harder to hold the camera still with your arms out in front of you. "VR/IS" would be helpful there, even with the shorter focal lengths.
Please understand that "VR" or "IS" (etc) will NOT stop motion in a moving subject. You need to use a high shutter speed and/or pan along with the subject in order to do that. VR is only to minimize the effects of camera movement to give you a better chance at getting a clear picture. It won't work miracles there, either. You have to at least TRY to hold still. You can't go down a bumpy road in speeding car and expect to get great shots.
This is a composite I made to demonstrate "vibration reduction," which is also called "image stabilization" and "shake reduction" by various camera and lens manufacturers. For the best results, you should click on "All Sizes" and then "Original" before making your comparisons. I tried to remain consistent for all three shots, but I guess as clouds move in and out, things varied by an f-stop or so. I do not think that depth of field is an issue in this test, though. I did not move my feet at all during the test, so the point of view is identical. All three images were made using 1/60th of a second, which I consider to be the low shutter speed for hand-holding a 60 mm lens. I made a reference shot with my 60 mm Nikon macro lens, since I know this to be a fairly sharp lens. I tried to hold as still as I could, but I did not use a tripod. I then made two more exposures with the Nikon 18-200 VR lens, set at 62 mm. I was trying to match the 60 mm lens, but I did it by just remembering some landmarks and zooming to match. As I used the VR lens, however, I did my best to actually "vibrate" the camera by inducing a tremor in my hands as if I was shivering in the cold. I took one photo with the help of VR and one without. It was extremely odd to look through the lens as I shook my hands. Since the VR was working, even though I knew I was shaking the camera, the image appeared steady in the viewfinder! Okay, compare the shots for yourself. You won't see too much difference in the top two, but the effect of vibration reduction is very obvious when you see how the picture comes out when "VR" is turned off.
Nikon D200 - ISO 100 - Nikon 60 mm Macro and Nikon 18-200 VR with and without VR
http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstei...
For a detailed, yet easy to understand explanation, see:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/image-st...
I am generally inclined to prefer Canon P&S cameras, but the image stablization might be the deal breaker here. Have you looked at the new Canon Powershot SD850-IS? I'd certainly consider it if it's in the budget...
SD850-IS (IXUS 950 IS) Preview:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0705/070507... I would go for the Canon Power shot over the Sony, I have 2 reasons for this, the first reason Sony's are way over priced and the last reason Canon makes one of the worlds best lens going! do not get me wrong here, Sony makes a great lens! but when you com pair apples to apples, Canon is the better of the both!
Thank You,
Bob |
