www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

Eccles you naughty boy, I told Lisa that, "I think he's on a wind up", so I didn't respond. It was a good one though, I would of bet good money that my mate Roger, was never gonna just let you get away with talking such rubbish.

Gruditch

Eccles
You trolled the bait through the water and I rose to it!
Well done.

Roger

Although I was winding you up, there was an element of truth in my comments. I forget which lens it was but I heard once that there were two versions of a Canon lens, one with IS the other without, and the non-stabilised version was apparently slightly better optically.
And of course not all Canon/Nikon lenses are stabilised, whereas ALL Sony/Minolta lenses are.
That said, I've seen some fabulous bird shots from the Canon 100-400 IS, so in the right hands it's a powerful photographic tool.

Just to join in this debate, I own an Olympus E3 which has in-body IS. The attached shot was taken hand held 1/10s @ f4 ISO 1000 and fl 60mm. It is a good demonstration of what in-body IS can achieve. I also use Sigma lenses and IS works well with these and my Zuiko lenses. The stabalisation takes into account the fl and therefore is effective whatever 4/3 lens is fitted.

Sorry the photo is not of a butterfly but I believe it illustrates the point very well.

PeterD

I have an interest in that now I have no IS but a DSLR and lenses I wish sometimes for the in-body IS in my old Panasonic FZ50! The image quality now is much better, but even with monopod getting them pin-sharp is difficult. I regularly hand-held down to 1/25th with good results on my Panasonic. But now I look at those old images closely, the noise is apparent at ISO 200. When/if I can afford the IS versions of Sigma or Tamron oe even Nikkor macros I will certainly be tempted!