jvarszegi wrote:
Logic not found. You\'re going to have to explain it better to me. Are you trying to say that if you have to use a flash anyway, no matter how harsh the light may be, softening it is absolutely useless? Are you trying to say that extra stops provided by IS could never nudge a shot from a flashed to a natural-light shot?
That\'s what I said is the obvious and really only argument against its usefulness for macro. You missed it but seem to have picked up on it now.
Well you obviously don\'t shoot macro or you would\'ve understood what I meant. Why don\'t you google \"effective f-stop\".
The light is only harsh when you don\'t know what you\'re doing. Some of the pros in macro forum can make their flash shot look like it\'s shot in natural light. Why don\'t you pop by the macro forum and check out how we diffuse lights eh? You might learn a thing or two.
Yes, I\'m saying the extra stops provided by IS wouldn\'t be enough. Why do you think that none of Canon\'s macro lenses have any IS?
IS is never designed to compensate for forward/backward motion so I\'m not sure why you even mention that here.
Esquire08 wrote:
Don\'t macro shooters use tripods? If not tripods, they would at least have to use high shutters speeds for non-static objects. Even if in-body IS would allow a macro shooter to shoot at 1/10th of a second, it would be useless with any object that moves.
You got it right, except that we do shoot handheld as well. Some crazy ones, like myself, even shoot handheld with the MP-E 65mm lens.
Nov 28, 2008 at 08:59 PM
Previous versions of n0b0's message #6429500 « In-Camera IS/VR »
You\'re going to have to explain it better to me. Are you trying to say that if you have to use a flash anyway, no matter how harsh the light may be, softening it is absolutely useless? 
Are you trying to say that extra stops provided by IS could never nudge a shot from a flashed to a natural-light shot? 