|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 5th, 2005, 02:28 PM | #1 |
New Boot
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Netherlands Europe
Posts: 7
|
Canon x3 lens no image stabilizer
So the x3 has no stabilizer, gives that more instable pictures than the x20 in
`wide` mode ? I would just buy this lense, but when I read it has no stabilizer I`m not so sure how stable the pictures are. |
December 5th, 2005, 02:36 PM | #2 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Mateo, CA
Posts: 3,840
|
Harry,
Image stabilization is a relatively new development in the history of lenses. I shoot with the manual 16x lens, and simply work carefully, or mount the camera on a tripod. Wide angle shots are more forgiving of 'shaky hands' in general, because the frame covers such a wider field of view, the relative motion is not as distracting as it would be with say, a telephoto... where the tinies movement is greatly exagerated. Why not rent one, or go to a store which might let you mount one on your camera in the shop for a 'test drive'? |
December 5th, 2005, 03:10 PM | #3 |
Trustee
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 1,689
|
I never have had an issue... remember you are very very wide and that will squelch most subtle motion.
ash =o) |
December 5th, 2005, 04:01 PM | #4 |
Wrangler
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Eagle River, AK
Posts: 4,100
|
Yup, agree totally with Ash. The 3x is wide enough that you just don't need IS, so Canon saved us the extra cost of putting it in the lens. ;-)
__________________
Pete Bauer The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. Albert Einstein Trying to solve a DV mystery? You may find the answer behind the SEARCH function ... or be able to join a discussion already in progress! |
December 5th, 2005, 06:59 PM | #5 |
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 917
|
If you have a good hand (shoulder, whatever) the 3X is fine. the IS would just cost like $2000 more. Wide angle lenses are normally stable anyhoo.
|
December 6th, 2005, 02:19 PM | #6 |
New Boot
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Netherlands Europe
Posts: 7
|
Thanks for the reply`s, the image from the x20 is realy stable and I almost never use a tripod.
I do mostly indoor (bigparty s) reporting and the x20 is realy to less wide. So we go to try the x3. |
December 6th, 2005, 08:21 PM | #7 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Litchfield Park, AZ (W/of Phoenix)
Posts: 502
|
Quote:
ml |
|
December 7th, 2005, 01:34 AM | #8 | |
New Boot
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Netherlands Europe
Posts: 7
|
Quote:
The Fujinon 12x 3.8 - 45.6mm 27 - 328mm has also a nice range but it isn`t compateble (yet?) for Canon XLx. Is the x3 lense better in low light than the x20 ? (x3 has less glass I think) |
|
December 7th, 2005, 08:43 AM | #9 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canton, Ohio
Posts: 1,771
|
Quote:
Because of the very limited zoom of the 3x this issue doesn't show up. |
|
December 8th, 2005, 01:29 AM | #10 |
Trustee
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 1,689
|
3X is a little better in low light just by the nature of being wider. The zoom lenses you guys are describing would be great but would cost $10K+!!!! The 3X is one of my standard set-ups, I generally do some takes with the 16X manual or 20X OIS as well...
ash =o) |
| ||||||
|
|