Is image stabilization really the stuff?

Started Mar 4, 2014 | Discussions thread
gkstar Regular Member • Posts: 354
Re: re: image stabilization? pretty useless for anything that moves (n/t)

cosmonaut wrote:

The only place I can recall being a tripod was not allowed was a museum and I had enough light at 6400 ISO at the time. I found the IS on the E-M1 so unreliable I had to take multiple shots to ensure a crisp image. What good is it if it can't be depended on? I was getting about 75% keepers. My previous Olympus cameras done way better.

But I think sooner or later high ISO quality is going to be so good IS will almost become a useless feature.

-- hide signature --

Very likely, though IS will remain a must when shooting video. Perhaps this is what you meant when you said almost

 gkstar's gear list:gkstar's gear list
Sony a6000 Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* E 24mm F1.8 ZA Sony E 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 OSS LE Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS Sony E 35mm F1.8 OSS +1 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow