Why, I must be a heretic or something to imply in-body image stabilization is not necessary for still image photography (it was developed for video, by the way). It increases complexity of the system, reduces reliability, adds cost and weight, reduces battery life and generally dumbs down the skill set of the average photographer, much like the fully auto mode on a point & shoot.
Yep, he's a luddite. People like him have been using this same argument against
every technological development that has ever come to the world of photography: auto focus, auto exposure metering, TTL auto flash metering, image stabilization, digital photography, LCD live view, etc. If people like him had their way, we'd still be using all-manual film cameras. Thankfully for all of us, people like him don't run camera companies! Otherwise, there would be little or no development in camera technology, and we'd all still be using manual film cameras.
Pity. That would sort the men from the boys. Nothing too much wrong with a good manual film camera. Gets rid of most of the gearheads, & all the pixel peeping, test chart shooting, lab test specialist number crunchers, & puts the focus back on skills, & composition. You know, actual photography. As opposed to forum dwelling tech "experts" that can't shoot to save themselves.
Typical elitist non-sense. BTW, what kind of equipment are the best photojournalists, sports photographers, and documentarians of today using? They all take full advantage of what technology has to offer. Yep, not many of them are using all-manual film cameras. Yep, they must just all be "boys"; they certainly aren't "men" who are doing "actual photography". Great photographers like James Nachtwey, Tim Hetherington, Steve McCurry, David Alan Harvey, who are all using modern cameras to capture their amazing images all just a bunch of "boys".
James Nachtwey
Tim Hetherington
Steve McCurry
David Alan Harvey
Haven't you just argued against your point about in camera stabilization, these photog's use Canon and Nikon both of which do not offer in camera stabilization?
No, if their brands had it, you can bet they'd use it!
But they purposely and carefully chose their equipment and it does not include in-cameras stab.
Like I said, if Canon or Nikon came out with DSLR that had IBIS, you can bet these photographers would use it in a heartbeat. Canon and Nikon have a lot of glass that still isn't stabilized.
The point is that elitists seem to think that "real photographers" eschew technology, when in reality the real photographers out on the frontlines of the field will gladly use any technology that gives them even the slightest benefit or edge.
Exactly, and they decided that IBIS does not give them a benefit that they want.
Again, if Canon and Nikon came out with DSLRs that had IBIS, they'd be using it.
And what works is in lens stability.
Except for those lenses that don't have stabilization! Hahahahah!
They aren't afraid of technology, as long as it helps them get the images they are after. David Alan Harvey, for example, has even published photos he's taken with his iPhone! Just Google "David Alan Harvey iPhone" and you'll find various links and images.
Exactly, again what the tech they chose is in lens!
Sheesh, you don't get it, do you. Rather than being some tyro who sits around on the internet wringing his hands about what technology to turn your nose up at, most workaday photographers are far more practical and pragmatic. If you have in-lens stabilization, you use it. If you have in-body stabilization, you use it. And if you have a smartphone, you use it too!
I think it's really the armchair elitists who are the ones who like to be snobbish about technology, foolishly arguing that it's ruining photography. The workaday photographer is much more pragmatic. We'll use anything that helps us gets the image, whether it be in-camera stabilization, or remote live view triggering via wifi, or an iPhone's camera! For example, if I have a non-stabilized lens, and I can put it on a camera that has in-body stabilization that allows me to have a steadier shot with my non-stabilized lens, you can sure bet that I'll take advantage of in-body stabilization. (And I don't just say that hypothetically; I actually do use it!) This foolish internet hand-wringing about whether or not IBIS is a benefit, or whether a "real" photographer would such technology, is just childish internet armchair quarterbacking.
I always read posts about how great IBIS is because it lets the writer use their old non-IS lenses that are so great, so they are snobish about some old lenses and are eschewing new tech., ie. in lens IS to use their outdated lenses.
Nope, I use it for my non-stabilized Canon EF lenses! Like I said earlier, Canon still has a lot of non-stabilized lenses that many of us own, and the ability to mount them on IBIS bodies adds a very nice advantage to these lenses! It's not us being snobbish. It's you! And think of what you're being snobbish about! You're being snobbish about a capability that adds stabilization to non-stabilized lenses that allows you to handhold them more steadily! Geez, you're turning up your nose at that?!? How petty and pointless!
I think this is an example of "My Brand Doesn't Have That Feature, Therefore That Feature Must Suck" Syndrome. I remember when Canon was the only DSLR brand that had FF. Nikon users were constantly talking cr@p about FF, saying that it was a dead format, not needed, FF lenses vignetted terribly and had very soft corner, blah, blah, blah. In other words, they were suffering from "My Brand Doesn't Have That Feature, Therefore That Feature Must Suck" Syndrome. But then Nikon finally got FF, and suddenly all those naysayers just disappeared. It was clear that they were mainly just disparaging a particular feature or technology because their brand didn't have it. Likewise, it seems pretty clear that this is what you're doing here with IBIS. Just because another company has a particular feature that your company doesn't have doesn't mean that particular feature isn't any good. For example, I love the panorama sweep feature that other brands have. But Canon doesn't have that feature! I guess if I were a Canon fanboy, I'd be talking cr@p about panorama sweep, too, just like you're attempting to do with IBIS. Fortunately, I'm open-minded enough to understand that there are other brands out there that have some really nice features, and that I'm not monogamous to any one brand.
