Electronic Image Stabilization: Are they better now?

7 May 2007 5:00 PM

skarkada

The last time when I was in the market for camera / camcorder, optical
image stabilization was recommended universally.

I was reading reviews on Sony HDR-SR1 which only features electronic
IS. I didn't see a single review complaining about the EIS. All the
negative reviews are against AVCHD and editing capabilities. Even
camcorderinfo.com didn't point out EIS as a negative.

So, is EIS now comparable to OIS quality? Or, is Sony's EIS technology
that good?

Thanks for taking the time to read and respond to my questions.

8 May 2007 3:48 PM

=(8)

<skark***@gmail.com> wrote in message
Show quote

news:1178557251.773763.290690@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> The last time when I was in the market for camera / camcorder, optical
> image stabilization was recommended universally.
>
> I was reading reviews on Sony HDR-SR1 which only features electronic
> IS. I didn't see a single review complaining about the EIS. All the
> negative reviews are against AVCHD and editing capabilities. Even
> camcorderinfo.com didn't point out EIS as a negative.
>
> So, is EIS now comparable to OIS quality? Or, is Sony's EIS technology
> that good?
>
> Thanks for taking the time to read and respond to my questions.
>

Optical is still better. However the electronic used in camcorder is pretty
good. Still images are totally different. There you want optical either in
the lens for an dSLR or optical in the camera lens (like on the 12X zoom
Panasonics). The ones that just up the ISO speed are crap and the ones that
try to stabilize the sensor so that all lenses you use on it are stabilized
like the Pentax K10D dSLR aren't very good.

=(8)