Originally posted by camera1001
Jed, I've never read your previous posts or whatever prior to this but I think different pple feel differently on technologies that work for them.
Oh yeah, certainly, I'm not disputing that.
Personally, I've gotten numerous feedbacks from pple I know and reviews in magazines that are all-praise for IS. Not for mere argument's sake but real life egs of how their shots would have turned out bad had it not been for IS.
As I said above, there aren't too many areas where IS really works, is essence it's more marketing spiel. And as for magazines, they're all paid up subscribers to the manufacturers, do you really think they can say anything bad about anything the manufacturers churn out?
The question is not so much Is it really necessary but rather What do YOU consider to be a major improvement in technology based on your task at hand. So it comes from your own experience, not an objective account.
Actually, the question's "What's the most useful technology in photography?" There's no specific "you" in that question. Maybe CK wanted an objective account, who knows.
At any rate, it asks for the "most" important, and you've come up with
two most importants. Nice one.
I don't doubt that you find USM to be thoroughly invigorating, and similarly would be very pleased with IS. No doubt, so would I.
The issue is to determine which of that list is "most important", you have to look through that list to pick one in lieu of all the rest. I'm just saying that while IS and USM are certainly useful, they are not hardly essential, especially when compared to one of those other options.
So if you find silent film rewind and focusing, AF and all that as not being a significant improvement, it's ok. But if anyone asks me, I'd say they are.
As above, they might well be a significant improvement, but are they the "most" important?
Maybe some are just jealous over pple over-praising all these technologies that exist in their cameras and lenses which the former don't own or use.
Oh really?
Even when you say you feel IS is useful only in 70-200mm and 300 f/2.8 lenses, bear in mind that you are also forming your own subjective opinion. This is certainly not of universal truth. It's only how you feel and I can tell you there are pple who use other zooms and primes with IS and they can definitely feel it working tremendously for them.
True, as is your subjective opinion. Evidence of people using and enjoying it does not make something the most important technology. In fact, in this given day and age, it's not even evidence of important technology. Especially in Singapore where so many people own huge, fast cars, and feel them working tremendously for them. Or where photographers own cameras that they'll never fully utilise either.
To reiterate my earlier statement, different pple consider different technologies as useful for them.
Yes. But the most useful? From that list?