My advice is not to get a cheap tripod. You'll spend more buying replacement cheap tripods than if you spend on a decent one at the start.

The DIS feature simply ramps up the ISO to maintain faster shutter speeds as a means to try and reduce the impact of camera shake on image quality. It doesn't work like IS and isn't actually much use.

The only (other) feature on the 420 that is anything along the same lines is Anti Shock (basically mirror lock up). This simply reduces the risk of camera shake due to the vibrations of the mirror flipping up. This would be useful when doing something like micro photography (or astro photography with a telescope adaptor), when you are using a very slow shutter speed, and any cameras movement must remain minimal.

How much did you pay for the 40-150, and is it the first one, that is made in Japan f/3.5 widefst apperture or the later one made in China that is lots smaller and ligher (and cheaper, plastic mount too) and f/4 ?

As it happens, the later one is sharper, focuses faster and nearer and it being lighter is easier to use on small bodies like the 420.

There are not many other inexpensive lenses to consider once you have the 14-42 and 40-150, but the 70-300 (a rebranded Sigma) can be had on fleabay for 220 and the Macro Prime 35mm is very good, does 1:1, very sharp, for under £200 (I have one for sale since I bought the 50 too). Don't bother with the 25mm pancake, unless you just want to reduce size of the overall unit, its no better (apart from being faster) than the kit at 25mm, as it suffers from CA somewhat and also some other bits and bobs.

Optical stabilisation is a better system (either in the lens or sensor shift in the body). My camera has the sensor shift variety which is turned on 99% of the time, even when not really needed. When mounted to a tripod though this has to be turned off.

I found this on a review of the camera which suggests the stabilisation system is simply a mode to ramp up the ISO to keep shutter speeds fast



In that case I'd probably avoid this mode if possible.

Current models wise, the E-520 and above from Olympus all have IS built into the body. Some have three modes, off horizontally but on vertically, vice versa, and on both horizontally and vertically. Although this might sound off, the reason for turning it off, for example, horizontally would be to pan by hand following a racing car or fast moving object, without the camera trying to wreck the effect you were getting or setting the shutter speed as a such for the car to appear in focus and the background to be blurred to indicate speed.

There are IS lenses from Leica, they are, for four thirds, a complete waste of cash for the price of buying one, you could buy an IS body and the superior Zuiko lenses like the 14-54 and 12-60.

Thanks Heather, can you suggest makes of relatively inexpensive tripods?


It says f4, Made in China on the box. Cost me £80, which seems to be about the going rate.


Well, that was rather lucky.

The little amount of time I've been playing with it so far has shown no real problems with camera shake - I don't think I have particularly steady hands so, with the addition of a (not so cheap) tripod, I don't think I'll fret too much about IS just yet. Maybe when my photgraphic skills improve enough for me to notice the limitation I'll yearn for something better, but I bought this camera because it was billed as a great introduction to DSLRs for novices.

Thank you all for your replies though, I'm finding it very helpful and informative.

Just don't fit a 12-60 SWD on it and take any pictures. You will be buying one right away if you do.

Good makes are Manfrotto and Giottos. You should be able to get a half decent tripod and head for under £100 or thereabouts.

Here's the cheapest Giottos tripod I can find so far: Warehouse Express Clicky

Here's a Giottos ball head (I have it and it's superb, though at over £50 may bust your budget): Warehouse Express Clicky

The thing is, you can get cheap aluminium tripods for £30, but they simply don't last and they are not durable. You'll spend another £30 in a year or two, then again a couple of years down the line. Spend out on a quality bit of kit, it will last you many, many years. It's the same with lenses, but that's a different thread I think!

Good grief, you can buy the head and the tripod separately?

I thought you were warning me off the supercheap ebay specials at £6.99, so I started looking at the £30 models.

A good inexpensive Tripod is the Velbon CX-640, if you want to spend more, have a look at Manfrotto's cheaper models.

+1 for Manfrotto. I also had Bilora and Gitzo, back in the day. If it's just for support (rather than locking the camera off for position) then it may be worth taking a look at a monopod??

Cheers, Pete.

Hah, yeah, I should have reminded you this photography malarkey isn't a cheap hobby!

Seriously though, do take a while to look at the options available at the lower end of the quality tripods. You won't regret it.

I knew it wasn't a cheap hobby, as far as set up costs go, but I was shocked at the price of some tripods.

I need one, I like the quality you get from long exposure shots, but I can't justify the cost of the name brand models right now - I was pushing it when I bought the 40-150mm lens, so I don't think my wife will look kindly on me forking out another £100 or so.
I may have to get a cheap as chips one and make do until I can stump up for a good one.

But I take your point Heather, and largely agree that quality is worth the outlay.

Manfrotto 055XPROB and 804RC2 head - £150 well spent.

There's a shorter version 190XPROB that is a bit cheaper that should do fine - mine tops out way above my head.

I would advise (just my humble opinion) to have a go at composing and taking shots without a tripod, to get used to posture and producing shots that aren't so shaky. Even on a non image stabilised body you can still pull off some cracking shots when you are used to it.

This might be of interest to you in which case, two pictures, one is taken with the older version of the 40-150mm lens (f/3.5 Japan one, also goes for about 80 quid on ebay secondhand) on an E-420 @ its maximum length of 150mm. The other is taken with a Leica Digilux 3 with a Zuiko 150mm f/2 Prime. Both pics taken by me (can provide the raw images), there is a considerable difference in price between the two setups...but not appreciable quality difference.
So i'm not saying which was taken with which. I didn't use a tripod on either.





I don't aubscribe to being a particularly great photographer, but I've seen people take some atrocious shots with expensive gear. All this goes to illustrate is you should stick with your gear as its capable of producing some nice shots, without IS or a Tripod.

Very nice photos.
I'm guessing however that both shots were taken in daylight so it was possible to use a fast shutter speed.
I'd agree that it's a good idea to be able to take good shots without needing all the expensive gubbins but sometimes you really do need it - long exposures for example or doing stuff with a big zoom or anything where the light is fading or you don't want to use flash. A good tripod or some form of stabilisation is what's needed in these cases (it's quite practical to take a good long exposure by using the timer and placing the camera on a solid stable surface for example).