Rangefinder vs. Image Stabilized SLR

[NickTrop]

To your last point, I always wondered why modern digital RFs don't have the in camera IS system. Wouldn't they be that much better?

Bob

Because IS is designed for stopping camera shake with extreme zoom lenses found on digicams (and camcorders), so you can actually use the things at the tele-end without mounting them on a tripod? Rangefinders are fixed lens cameras - not usable (obviously) with zoom lenses, therefore inclusion of IS is moot.

And, because IS is not really intended for slow shutter/low light solutions because the subject motion blur below 1/30th will likely ruin the image? Therefore, you're limited to stationary objects at these speeds, which "won't go anywhere" anyway if you're using a tripod and can shoot at any slow speed you want?

Just a guess...
|

 

[rovnguy]

Piss on all this image stabilization and vibration reduction crap. It is nice that we have the technology to deliver it, but no more than that. I can hold a camera still enough to get a well focused exposure. I also know how to use a tripod. My fast primes make all the difference.

 

[DwF]

What would Ernst Haas have used?

What would Ernst Haas have used?

DSLRs certainly have their place but happily I can get by with an older DSLR and enjoy my M camera for the fun stuff. The link here was on a walk one evening last week. I found it very satisfying making this picture: leaving ISO at 160, stopping down and hand-held at 1/8th sec to capture movement of my subject.

http://www.pbase.com/bitonal/image/94808448

 

[aizan]

IS improves sharpness across the whole range of shutter speeds. nothing to get riled up about.

i'd be thrilled to get the best possible performance from my m-mount lenses. they sure cost enough.