Image Stabilization for around $300?

[Below Zero]

I know, I know, another digital camera question. Ok, so I've narrowed it down to three:

1. Canon A95
2. Nikon Coolpix 5900
3. Sony DSC-W5

None of these come with "image stabilization" though. Are there any comperable cameras to these that offer this nice feature?

Which one do you think would be the best skiing camera?

Comparison:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/comp...mcfz3&show=all

[Arty50]

I have the A95 and it's awesome. Just make sure you get a good set of NiMH rechargable batteries and a professional compact flash card. Those batteries will give you a lot of shots (way more than alkalines) and the pro cards have faster read/write speeds which will decrease the time between your shots.

I'm constantly getting compliments on the pictures I take with this camera. Also, I've never had a problem with image stabilization even on the Auto setting. If you do have a problem, then just put it in Action mode (the running figurine) or put it in one of the semi-manual modes and bump up the shutter speed. This will help cancel out any shaking you might be doing. Also, in my experience this is really only a problem with video cameras.

[SquawMan]

I also own (and love) my A95

it blows away the two other choices, especially the Sony, which takes really fuzzy pictures (it's got a bad chip)

[Snow Dog]

Canon S1 IS:
3.2 megapixels, 10x optical zoom, image stabilization, 640x480x30fps video

[PowderPig]

I have this one (Panasonic DMC-FZ3):

I don't know if it's comparable to the cameras you listed, but I like it a lot. Nice and fast for action shots...
Review: Review at dpreview

[summit]

get the a95

[Spats]

If you can survive with 4 MP instead of 5, the Powershot A520 is essentially the same camera, but with a 4x optical zoom (instead of 3x) and substantially smaller. It just came out....I tried one in the store and it's quite nice.

There's a review on dpreview.com, so you can compare it with your other choices.

I've had a Powershot A70 for a couple years now and it's taken thousands of excellent pictures and a few movies. Plus Canon has been very kind with the warranty: they FedExed my camera back to me so I could have it for a trip to Japan, and didn't even charge me extra!

[Foggy_Goggles]

Those shots are sweet Arty. I convinced that even with digis, it is mostly the photo that makes the diff. My pictures (with a "good" cannon camera) basically suck because I haven't taken the time to read the manual and I don't know jack about photography.

[SquawMan]

both of these were taken by me with the A95...the second "action" shot was not shot is an action mode, it is a cropped picture taken from the same distance as the first picture in a still frame mode (ie. the worst possible way to take an action shot)

[Darkside]

both of these were taken by me with the A95...the second "action" shot was not shot is an action mode, it is a cropped picture taken from the same distance as the first picture in a still frame mode (ie. the worst possible way to take an action shot)

Are you making excuses for why it looks like shit?

[mojorisin]

Here's the deal: you really don't need IS if you're mainly shooting in daylight conditions. Chances are, you want to capture action, thus your shutter speed must be fast enough to freeze a charging skier and all that nice pow he/she is throwing around. So unless you're a crack addict and absolutely can't control your hands, I'd look for a camera with the quickest response. (Buy yourself an older Digital Rebel - it will kick the shit out of any digicam.)

[Below Zero]

So unless you're a crack addict and absolutely can't control your hands, I'd look for a camera with the quickest response.

So, what if you are a crack addict?

Thanks for all the help guys. I appreciate it.

[gramps]

Minolta Z3. 4 megapixel, 12X optical zoom. I've got the Z1, couldn't justify the extra dough, but I was drooling over that one. I think it was a little over $300 at Costco, but retail on it is probably quite a bit more than that.

[Meathelmet]

Here's the deal: you really don't need IS if you're mainly shooting in daylight conditions. Chances are, you want to capture action, thus your shutter speed must be fast enough to freeze a charging skier and all that nice pow he/she is throwing around.

I have to rather disagree with that.

Since rule-of-tumb is that you need the shutterspeed eqalent to the mm of the lense to make sure that the images are not shaken.
Ia 35mm -> 1/35 th/sec
200mm -> 1/200th/sec
400mm -> 1/400th/sec
etc...

When you are using a 70-200 f2.8 lens with a x2 teleconverter you suddenly have a 140-400 f 5.6 lens. Add to that some velvia (iso 50)
and you suddenly are maxed out:
(sunshine regulary is around 1/250 and f 11, ia 1/500 and f 8 with iso 100)
Wich makes it 1/500s and f 5.6 with velvia.

So forget shooting in the best light conditions; morning dusk,alpenglow etc.
because the risk of getting shaky pictures is...high.
With IS it is possible to shoot as low as 1/60 - 1/30s with a relatively long lense (200-300mm).

Of course you get the different kind of problems, pan-stripes for example.
Witch is a different case altogether.

[mojorisin]

Meathelmet, I believe original question asked for IS for around $300, thus your 70-200/2.8 is just a bit out of the price range, not even mentioning the 70-200/2.8 IS/VR....

Certainly true on all your points, but my question is why are you still using film? That oh so dreaded 1.6 crop factor (assuming you're not balls ass rich) gives you quite a bit of extra reach. May not quite be 50 velvia, but surely not too far off. (And you would now be able to live with a much more light friendly 1.4 converter)

[Meathelmet]

Meathelmet, I believe original question asked for IS for around $300, thus your 70-200/2.8 is just a bit out of the price range, not even mentioning the 70-200/2.8 IS/VR....

It´s even more important the poorer the largest F-stop is in the first place.

Certainly true on all your points, but my question is why are you still using film? That oh so dreaded 1.6 crop factor (assuming you're not balls ass rich) gives you quite a bit of extra reach. May not quite be 50 velvia, but surely not too far off. (And you would now be able to live with a much more light friendly 1.4 converter)

One word: FPS (isnt that a acronym?).

With Eos 1 RS you get the 10fps.
Even with D20 you get only 5fps, and with D1 Mark II you get the 8.5 frames wich begins to close the gap,with a 7.300 euro price tag around here..
So you can count for a starting skiphotog that wich is a better buy: good lenses and a RS or 1/3 of D1 ?

And yes, the smaller sensor sucks bigtime due to the 1.6x conversion.
You loose the controll of the focal depth with wide angle lenses (ia. it is almost impossible to make a front/sharp-background/blur pictures with wideangle lenses due to the multiplying factor of millimeters. A 20mm wideangle acts as a 36mm in your camera. Have you ever tried to controll the
unsharpness of the picture with a 20mm that has been stopped down to, lets say,f8? Everything is sharp.
Thats not what professional photographers want.
They want to controll the sharpness/unsharpness to their needs.
Not to be forcefed.
That whats so lovely with the rollfilm/sheetfilm cameras that you have controll of the focal depth, even on extreme wide angle lenses.
You can decide when the background/foreground is unsharp.

Sorry if my rant is a bit confusing.Writing in english is not my best asset.