One Lense

[wbeem]

I see your point. But I think a lot of it depends on the situation. If you have a family along and want to keep tripod use at a minimum, the IS can be a great benefit. I bring my tripod for fireworks, but the family fusses if I drag it along and take too much time to set up a lot of shots. If I can shoot on the go with IS, it might not be as good as a tripod shot, but it's better than no shot.

I was just going over my shots from last year's Christmas parade. In 2010 I shot with my 17-55 2.8 with IS. This year I shot with my 50-150 2.8 withOUT IS. I ended up with a little shakeon more shots, and I am coming to the conclusion it was the lack of IS.

I hate to say "it depends", but that statement is really true with photography questions.

Let's take night parades as an example. When a subject is coming straight at you, IS could be a very useful feature. You can use a slower shutter speed because the motion isn't that detectable. If the subject is going sideways, you're going to get motion blur with a slow shutter speed because your subject has time to move from left to right, for example. IS won't fix that at all, and neither will a tripod. The only way to avoid blur is to have a faster shutter speed or use a flash (short duration of light). Of course, a flash is a horrible solution for something like the Electrical Parade because you want to capture those lights. In a dark ride, you're not permitted to use flash. Even so, flash ruins the atmosphere of those environments.

That's why I love the fast glass.

I totally get the idea about having a family along. When I go out there with my tripod, it's because my goal is photography, not a day at the park. So you have to prioritize and sacrifice one thing or the other. I'm not going on Space Mountain with a tripod, obviously.

Whether a bad shot is better than no shot is fodder for another debate, though.

 

[wbeem]

Honestly, if I were starting over, I'd be going with one of the brands with in-body IS. I love the range of my 50-150 2.8 and would ditch it and buy an IS version, but there isn't one. With in-body IS, that wouldn't even be an issue.

All things are not equal. An in-body IS system can't do the same things an in-lens IS system can do.

 

[mom2rtk]

I hate to say "it depends", but that statement is really true with photography questions.

Let's take night parades as an example. When a subject is coming straight at you, IS could be a very useful feature. You can use a slower shutter speed because the motion isn't that detectable. If the subject is going sideways, you're going to get motion blur with a slow shutter speed because your subject has time to move from left to right, for example. IS won't fix that at all, and neither will a tripod. The only way to avoid blur is to have a faster shutter speed or use a flash (short duration of light). Of course, a flash is a horrible solution for something like the Electrical Parade because you want to capture those lights. In a dark ride, you're not permitted to use flash. Even so, flash ruins the atmosphere of those environments.

That's why I love the fast glass.

I totally get the idea about having a family along. When I go out there with my tripod, it's because my goal is photography, not a day at the park. So you have to prioritize and sacrifice one thing or the other. I'm not going on Space Mountain with a tripod, obviously.

Whether a bad shot is better than no shot is fodder for another debate, though.

The problem of course is that some of us can only get to Disney once a year and have no choice but to do a constant balancing act between family, gear and shots. If I'm lucky, I get one day at certain parks each year. So yes, I'd rather take a handheld shot with the benefit of IS than no shot. And I'd much rather do that with IS.

Some of us never get the luxury of a day in the parks with a sole purpose of photography. I keep reminding myself there will be time aplenty for that when the kids are gone. In fact, one day I'll have FAR too many days in the parks for photography with no kids along. In the meantime, the shots won't be perfect, but they'll be good enough. How do I know they're good enough? Because my opinion is the only one that matters.

BTW.... I love fast glass too. I just prefer fast IS glass whenever possible.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

All things are not equal. An in-body IS system can't do the same things an in-lens IS system can do.

This argument has been made ad nauseum. They both have advantages and disadvantages. So, like in all photography it is a matter of compromises. Personally (and this is just me) I like the combination of fast glass with in-body. So we move on to happy thoughts of the next photographic challenge!

 

[YesDear]

I concur!