Bill Pearce wrote:
> Begin broken record...
>
> My wife has an N80 and D70s, both of which she uses with an 60-400VR Nikkor,
> and occasionally allows me to use it. I am, as a professional photographer
> of over 30 years, perfectly aware of what IS/VR/OIS can and cannot do. I
> consider it to be a requirement on some lenses, and something nice on
> others. On a 28-100, it falls into the latter catagory.
>
> For the record, I do not generally find correction for subject motion to be
> a requirement.
>
You know what you are doing and what's right for you - and more power to
you.
When I post opinions here, I try to keep in mind that there are at least
a few relatively new and not deeply knowledgeable folks here. Certainly
there are a handful we know about from posts. No telling who else may be
listening or may drop by.
On of the reasons I don't post on the many other forums around and
seldom read them is the appallingly low level of knowledge, thought and
precision in the posts. I have, for an on topic example, seen posts from
folks complaining that their IS/OIS/VR/etc. camera/lens doesn't work.
The posted examples of this failing have clearly been unsharp as a
result of subject motion. And then some other folks pipe up with similar
woes. Seldom does anybody post clarification of what IS is and what it
can and can't do. So people are spending money on the wrong thing and/or
using it wrong because of a fundamental misunderstanding of what it is
and what it can and can't do.
So for me, the bald statement "I won't buy a digital slr without some
sort of stabilization." cries out for some clarification. Not for you,
but perhaps to save others from making uninformed decisions that they
regret.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Panasonic DMS-TZ1
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Fujifilm F30
>>
> Two cameras I'm not interested in.
Nor do I expect you to be, they were just to illustrate that I'm not
just being some crank pounding on an issue nobody 'official' thinks is
important.
> although the jellyfish shot is both
> dramatic and well executed, it isn't in any way representative of what I
> shoot. I do, however, like it a lot.
>
Thanks for the positive comments! It isn't, of course, representative of
anything I have shot before, either. I was there for the inaugural,
short term Jelly exhibit years ago, and thought then how I couldn't see
a way to photograph them. Years later, I could! Made me quite happy.
And I do understand that different folks shoot different things. Subject
motion is an issue in a significant portion of what I tend to shoot.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|