Wow, are you part of NIkon\'s or Canon\'s marketing team? If not you should join them....
So much words for denying the obvious: That body IS is the best overall solution for camera shake at low shutter speeds, it simply covers ALL lenses.
1. The importance of IS increases proportionally with focal length.
2. Lens-based IS stabilizes the image in the optical viewfinder.
3. \"Best overall\" does not apply when you consider that many professionals need \"best for their current shooting situation.\"
You ignored ALL of these statements of fact. Just because I could have in-body IS on a 16-35mm zoom doesn\'t mean I particularly care to; whereas I *need* lens-based IS if I\'m shooting @ 600mm f/8 handheld.
Look, I [B]NEVER[/B] said Canon shouldn\'t implement some kind of in-body IS. I am specifically addressing this persistent myth that lens-based IS is just a marketing ploy or an expensive boondoggle. For the last time, it is NOT. There are very real and tangible advantages to having lens-based IS, almost to the point of being VITAL on the big whites. But go ahead and insult me for daring to speak about using the best technology for the task at hand, especially when we\'re talking about $7000 lenses. All it does is make your position appear even more absurd.
Dec 22, 2009 at 07:11 AM
Previous versions of wickerprints's message #7917217 « Where the A900 really shines »
