Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Feb 25, 2006, at 11:52 AM, K.Takeshita wrote: > >> Despite the arguments that skilful photographers won't need it >>(which is probably true), IS saved me a lot of otherwise cull pics. > >I think it really depends on what you're shooting. I wouldn't go >without my monopod to a baseball game because my arms would get tired >from holding the damned camera up, and the shutter speeds are fast >enough (because of the movement of the players and the ball) that I >don't know how much of a difference anti-shake would make, but I really >do appreciate the anti-shake mechanism in my little point and shoot, >because I don't have to bring a monopod to shoot in a dark-ish location >with a pocketable camera. > >I would be very entertained by a camera not too much bigger than the DS >with an anti-shake mechanism combined with some small lenses.
I think a big advantage of anti-shake would be the fact that shooting at a lower shutter speed allows you to close down the aperture for greater depth of field. In some sports shooting, especially with very long lenses, this would be very, very useful indeed. I'm pretty confident that the new DSLR will have in-camera image stabilization. But I'm also pretty sure it won't be on the market in time for my annual Mid-Ohio Superbike shoot! :( -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
