before IS was invented...

SkipD wrote in post #4922672
My training and experience in firearms shooting techniques and my use of cameras with long lenses blended quite well in the olden days.

The techniques of creating a solid platform out of one's body and controlling breathing really do apply. I have, for example, very effectively used sitting positions for photography that mirror that used the similar techniques for rifle shooting.

Skip, maybe the US should propose Competitive Photographic Triathlon the next time we host the Olympics...

Run over 2 mile course with hurdles (over cow patties, dog droppings, planter boxes) and water obstacles (plugged street drains, beaver dams, fountains), with stops scattered along the way which require shooting static targets and popup disappearing targets with 400mm non-IS lens, followed by swimming 400 meters to shallow area where you retrieve your camera from a waterproof bag and shoot rapidly moving skeets as targets. Winner is judged my how many of the targets are photographed, and how steady/blurred the static targets are, under pixel peeped examination!

dashboard-day wrote in post #4922775
i find the "shoot and spray" style of photography causes more hand shake (at least with me.) when I think more about the picture and take the time to compose it properly, i find im more steady.

That can probably be explained by the fact that it is more difficult to hold the camera steady when it is acting as a 3Hz or 5Hz vibrator!

Well I just sold my 70-200mm f/2.8 because it didn't have IS. Eventually I'll get the version with it, but for now I'm testing my love of primes with a 135L and 300L...

I shoot mostly sports and landscapes. So it's either fast shutter speeds or tripods for me 95% of the time. But after owning the 300L and seeing what it's IS can do, all of a sudden you have a long lens that can be used indoors wide open at 1/60th. Why is this important? Well for shooting people 1/60th is enough most of the time, but I could never easily shoot people inside at ~200 at 1/60th... Tripods don't work well with people (think parties/weddings). It's never light enough for 1/250th. A monopod could work, but is much more difficult in practice than IS. IS is just the easiest answer to get sharp shots in certain situations. If you don't shoot in those situations, then you won't need it at all. I usually don't, but do just enough I find I want the 70-200mm... Eventually I'll get one because it's a better lens for me, even with occasional use in these conditions.

So if you can afford the IS, and need it even sometimes, get it. If not use a tripod or monopod or fast shutter speeds.

I don't know, I drink coffee. A lot of coffee. Shooting first thing in the morning after said consumption... Is fraught with peril! IS is a godsend for the caffeine junkies among us, IMO. Especially at longer focal lengths, I wouldn't want to be without it.

And, I didn't want to say this - but as we get older, we get less steady. Not that any of us are getting older. Nope. Just throwing that out there. LOL.

I think IS is a great advance for lenses, but I suspect I've shot far more photos without IS than with IS. It comes to a matter of technique. I can shoot at pretty low shutter speeds handheld with good technique after years of practice, but no matter how good I am, IS still helps.

I'm a coffee nut too. I either have the shakes from withdrawal or from being caffeinated so IS helps immensely. Having said that, my most used lens doesn't even have IS. 1/80th isn't hard to come by very often though anyway.

haha, coffee keeps me alive.

terriyaki wrote in post #4921660
Assuming they didn't have a tripod or monopod on them I'm guessing if they really needed the extra stop or two they looked for things to brace themselves against.

i brace myself no matter what type of lens i'm using. the suggestions that IS is not really necessary or it is evil because it makes photographers lazy is crazy talk .

ed rader

I looked at some hand held eagle shots that I took weeks ago and there were a couple of keepers at 400mm that had 1/320 shutter speed. Seeing that, I would have to say IS works for me.

However, this is what I can't explain.
1. Shooting on a tripod, turn IS off. I guess some have sensing that will shut it off automatically?
2. Handheld, turn IS on.
So, having an IS lens and trying to hold it steady as a tripod should not be done?

exactly. you want to shake around as much as possible when using IS with your lens. just do a little jig while taking the pictures. i mean, you want to get your money's worth of IS since you pay extra for it. haha. I think lenses are getting to smart for us. anyone seen the matrix? be warned. technology will rule us.

Chiva wrote in post #4921751
They used REAL photo TECHNIQUE, not laziness.

tripods, monopods, human tripods, walls to brace on, etc

Also, high speed film, noise was accepted back then, people are too fussy thesedays.

This is nonsense. Even with IS you may need walls to brace on and those with IS lenses still use tripods and monopods!

Why would you say that those who use the latest technology to assist with their photography do not use real technique? Name any field that does not try to use the best their is to make them better or make their job easier?

[QUOTE=EOS_JD;4923591]​This is nonsense. Even with IS you may need walls to brace on and those with IS lenses still use tripods and monopods!

Why would you say that those who use the latest technology to assist with their photography do not use real technique? Name any field that does not try to use the best their is to make them better or make their job easier?[/quote]

you'll always have a few luddites who'll decry the obvious benefits of technology .

ed rader

Ed, JD's motivation behind the statement was merely that that one should, today, use good technique, and then add the technology for more assist!... a counter to Chiva's comment on people being too fussy and too lazy to depend upon good technique.

Wilt wrote in post #4923658
Ed, JD's motivation behind the statement was merely that that one should, today, use good technique, and then add the technology for more assist!... a counter to Chiva's comment on people being too fussy and too lazy to depend upon good technique.

and i agree. i said as much in another post. my comment on IS was a general statement against crazy talk.

you know even back in prehistoric days i'll bet a few skulls were cracked in heated debates over whether fire was a good or bad thing !

ed rader