That is true as long as the going to that high-ISO does not degrade your image quality. In practice IS is preferable when the subject is still. When the subject is moving, no IS will help you but high-ISO will.
If you have a stationary subject, the two stops will give you an extra stop of signal above noise than the ISO upped a couple of stops. To minimize noise and maximize dynamic range, you first maximize the light collected which is done by using ISO to lower shutter speeds. If that does not give an adequate exposure, then you up the ISO.
I think the real question is, which is more of an advantage, maintaining image quality at high ISO, or IS... of course it depends on the use and it's a pain that we can't have both in a compact.
There are a lot of places where tripods are not allowed or can not be used for other reasons. Also, tripods are bulky and inconvenient to carry and just slow you down where IS does not.
Fair argument. And sometimes a trouble.
NOT a valid argument=)
You could say the same when evaluating electric windows instead of hand-wound, central heating instead of big wooly jumpers, nail gun instead of hammer, beating sheets against a rock instead of washing machine, baking your own bread instead of buying it from a bakery, aperture priority instead of full manual, etc etc.
Having just returned from six weeks of trooping around SEA I certainly see the tripod issue with different eyes than you.
Yep. But notice how you identified a subset of photographers who have their own needs.
... both?
All I said was that tripods being inconvenient and bulky/heavy, isn't a valid reason not to use one.
All of us are required to walk our miles in your shoes.
Doing what's needed apparently does not include using a lens with IS, which will get you pictures where a tripod would not.
In the real world, this is a valid factor in deciding whether to use some other mechanism to achieve a similar effect.
