Would you prefer advancements in IS or ISO??

Scatterbrained wrote in post #15934458
I'd like advancements in low iso ability.

Yep...after all some of us do shoot when we can actually see our subjects

Give me 4 stop in body IS and I'll be happy.

Hogloff wrote in post #15934807
Give me 4 stop in body IS and I'll be happy.

Hmmm, IBIS, added with the new Panasonic sensor coating (that eliminate the Bayer filter) coupled with a base iso of 16 or 25 while we're dreaming. . . . . .

ISO and DR.

I can live without IS. Only three of my lenses have IS and I'm fine with that.

However, I would LOVE in body IS

Neither, canon needs better dynamic range first.

What would you choose - 4 stops better ISO or 4 stops better IS?

ISO, of course! It is simply more universal. 4 stops more of ISO achieve the same result when dealing with shaky hands situation as 4 stops IS would. In addition, better ISO will help freeze the motion, which IS can't do.

gjl711 wrote in post #15934635
They are not interchangeable, but they are closely linked along with aperture. Double the ISO = double the shutter speed for the same aperture. Quadruple the ISO, quadruple the shutter speed for the same ISO.

Yes but depending on what you're shooting, there are still technical or creative limiations that determine whether or not high ISO or IS are of benefit.

For example, if you're shooting portraits with anything other than a telephoto, IS or not, you can only slow your shutter speed so much before you lose sharpness because you're subject is not perfectly static. Further accentuated if you're shooting something like sports.

Conversely, if you're trying to capture a sense of motion, IS of primary importance over ISO. Landscape shooters also take give a low ISO and small aperture a priority over shutter speed, and would benefit greatly from IS, as it can alleviate the need for a tripod (unless you're shooting in low light of course)

ISO. But that isn't because IS isn't important. It is just that it has pretty much gotten good enough that I never need more.

My old 100-400L could use a better IS module, but I have no complaints with the performance of the IS unit in my 70-200/2.8 II.

ISO is getting less important too, but I could still take a little more. If ISO12800 in my 5D3 was as good as 3200 or 6400, then I would be set. So really I'm about 1-2 stops in ISO from complete satisfaction and even so I can hardly complain.

ISO for sure... The higher and cleaner, the better.

I really like IS, and will spend the extra money for a lens that has it over one that does not; however after shooting with my T4i, and having visible noise in even ISO 800 images, with 1600 being practically unusable I must say that I'd prefer higher ISO right now.

And I'm jealous of the above 5d mark II shooters.

Whiskey

Both.

IS for times when I want to use a slow shutter-speed.

ISO for times when I want a high shutter-speed.

If I had to choose one, I would pick IS since much of my work is at lower shutter speeds.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #15934866
ISO and DR.

I can live without IS. Only three of my lenses have IS and I'm fine with that.

However, I would LOVE in body IS

^THIS!!!!

I'll take the ISO over the IS in most situations.

ISO

ISO.