Terry, it's not just a claim she makes.... look at her galleries.
And I think there's something to be said that if she can get good
handheld shots, other people can too. Not necessarily everyone, but
probably quite a few. It's a matter of technique and practice.
Now if you don't have the time or patience to get that technique
down, or have too much caffeine in your diet (not a joke - I shot
target rifles in high school and this was a major point from our coach
for holding steady!), then IS can be a big help.
I've read a lot of her posts too, and noticed that sharpness is very
important to her in her pictures. If she wasn't getting that with her 700,
why would she like it so much? She tried the Uzi with IS, but found the
700 was better for her.
Also, please remember that English is not Daniella's native language,
and while she expresses herself very well, the tone and intent of people's
words don't always come across as intended in writing -- even for those
whose only language is English.
I simply see her expressing her opinion no different than anyone
else here, and it's a welcome (and I think needed) balance.
Please, continue to discuss the point (IS, or not to IS), but
also be careful of the tone in which you express your opinions.
In this particular case, regardless of your intent, your comments
could very easily be seen as a personal attack. The 700 and 2100
have many similarities, and a few key differences. If IS isn't important
to someone due to having good skill/talent/technique the manual
white balance does become one of the most important discriminators.
...and before anyone gets in a huff, I consider myself to be
first in line in the "impatient with poor technique" crowd.
Probably too much caffeine too.
Daniella,
Do you think that is why Oly supposedly discontinued the UZI
because Image Stabilization isn't really necessary? And you don't
have any problem holding it steady at full zoom on 1/10 sec? Wow!!
Simply amazing! I always thought the heavier camera would be more
stable. JD
