How useful is IS compared to the ability to shoot at a high ISO?

When looking for a new camera, I put a lot of weight on the fact if the camera has IS. But is this justified? When shooting at 80/100 ISO at daylight, not at telezoom range, how much good does IS really do? (for example with a P&S superzoom cam).

And when looking at a SLR, how does shooting at higher ISO with for example a Nikon D50 weight up against a Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D/7D with IS?

I have no experience with it, so I don't know what to expect or not expect from IS.

Thanks!

Well ... almost without exception, using a higher ISO gives you a lesser quality photo. You get more noise, grain, digital nasties, whatever you want to call it. Turning the ISO up means pretending to have more light to work with ... boosting a signal.

Some cameras, typically the digital SLRs, are much better able to do this than others. An ISO 800 shot coming out of a Canon 5D looks better than an ISO 100 shot from the last Olympus camera I had. ( This was years ago; I'm sure they've gotten better. )

Almost always, the reason you turn the ISO up is so you can use a faster shutter speed. Either because you don't want to use a tripod, or your subject is moving.

Now, IS, helps remove blur from camera shake. It's like using a tripod, except it's less of a silver bullet. It will only get you so far, and if your subject is moving it won't help with that. But if you just don't feel like using a tripod, IS can help.

Now it's not an either/or situation. A lot of the time just one of those things by itself won't get you all the way where you need to be, but the two of them together will.

If I take for example with a SLR a picture at daylight (static object) at a lower ISO, how much use is IS? And can one emulate that 'stabelising' effect by using a faster shutter speed (at for example ISO200 or 400)?

Let for argument sake say the IS cam is the Konica Minolta and the non IS camera a Nikon or Canon.

such as people, cars, animals, flowers moving in the wind etc, and you strive to freeze the movement, image stabilization is as useful as a brick in the head.

For stationary objects where you can't use a tripod, nor improve the light, IS is very useful.

If you believe half of the manufacturers claims, it will be the equivalent of going from iso200 to iso 800, not bad at all=)

Cheers
--
Anders

Some of my pictures can be seen at;
http://teamexcalibur.se/US/usindex.html

event photography and photo journalism

Have you read
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=18058062
a thread titled "Image Stabilization vs. High ISO" on this very forum?

ericinho said:

If I take for example with a SLR a picture at daylight (static
object) at a lower ISO, how much use is IS? And can one emulate
that 'stabelising' effect by using a faster shutter speed (at for
example ISO200 or 400)?

Click to expand...

Shooting at a lower ISO speed will mean using a slower shutter speed. If you can shoot at 1/400 sec at ISO 400, you'll be shooting 1/100 sec at ISO 100.

You can get blurry photos from shooting too slow a shutter speed because (1) you moved the camera, and/or (2) your subject moved. Using IS or a tripod would help with the first, but not the second. Lowering you shutter speed makes both more likely.

ericinho said:

Let for argument sake say the IS cam is the Konica Minolta and the
non IS camera a Nikon or Canon.

Click to expand...

The only reason that would matter, is if you already had lenses or flashes or something for one of them...

It depends what you want to do. IS/VR/AS is good for limiting camera shake, but it doesnt' slow down motion in the subject. I've heard claims that an IS/VR lens is a little more effective than the in body style.

As far as high ISO, to my eyes, the differences between dslrs are fairly small, but the difference between DSLRS and prosumers/p&s are huge. I personally wouldn't take a stabilized prosumer over a DSLR due to the noise differences.

Also, depending on what you are shooting, a monopod or tripod buys you infinitely more stability. I use a tripod for almost anything not moving when I have the space to set it up. It even makes a difference at higher shutter speeds.
--



A small but growing collection of my photos can be seen at
http://www.pbase.com/poliscijustin

IS is great, but no miracle cure for unsteady hands. But when you use your cam primarily for traveling, using a tripod is a bit of a pain. Then IS with a higher shutterspeed/ISO can just give you that edge, especially at the tele-end of your zoom.

However, lots of people shoot without IS, it just takes some practice.

Anyway, so far the KM 5/7D offer in-body IS and upcoming are the Sony A100 and the new Pentax camera's (and no doubt the rest will follow).

I am curious to see how that will influence the top segment of the P&S camera market (so the market of the Panasonic FZ30 and other IS cameras)...