Oh IS, How Doth Change Thee.

[Chuck Lee]

I'm voting "None of the Above" If you had put in a line item that said:


A great feature to have for hand held video, low light photography, andcreative effects.


I would have checked that one.


I really liked the Pentax in-camera image stabilization on my K10D. I still have Takumars that I can use with my Canons but don't have the addded benefit of the in-camera Shake Reduction system. Even a stop at times can make a huge difference. Of-course it's useless for panning, but I don't shoot too many bicyclists or atheletes. Canon and Nikon are being extremely stubborn on this particular issue. But $100-$600 more expensive IS lenses are what most people want to buy. I don't get it. Never will. Don't own an IS lens. If I had unlimited funds I would prefer my 70-200 have IS only because the flash sync speed of my 5D is 1/200. If I could mount this lens to a Pentax K7D, I'd be shooting Pentax. Well, at ISO's of 800 or less. Love my 5 for low-light.

[Cory]

While I don't think it's by any stretch "neccesary" I definately think it's good. I really don't get the people who think it's some crutch or crummy photographers trick to get better pictures. By that logic shouldn't we all be using film cameras and developing our own film or risk being labelled a hack? Or better yet the old 'plates' they used to use? If I can now go take pictures hand held in instances that I would have had to formally use a tripod, how exactly does that detract from the skill it took in all other aspects?


My answer.... why not?

[Daniel Browning]

...why did it only show up in digital cameras and not film cameras/lenses of olde?

Err, because it didn't? Canon's first image stabilized lens, the EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM, was introduced in 1995. Digital photography didn't really become accessible until the introduction of the first sub-$1000 DSLR, the Digital Rebel (2003). That's eight years after the introduction of I.S.