In an earlier post I enthusiastically supported Canon's
image-stabilization technology. One reader emailed me and expressed
reservations about the worth of this technology, so I'll try to
clarify where I think it is useful and where it won't help at all.

The purpose of image-stabilization is to help defeat problems with
camera movement due to shaky hands, a wobbly tripod, or when you are
photographing from a moving boat or plane. In my experience it helps
immensely with these problems. I find I can photograph landscapes
and big birds hand-held under conditions when I would have used a
tripod before. Or from a rolling boat where I could not have shot
successfully before (a tripod doesn't help on a rolling boat).

Where image-stabilization won't help is when you are photographing a
nervous little warbler that is constantly in motion. Then you need a
fast shutter speed, fast film, or flash. And if your shutter speed
is fast, image-stabilization just isn't necessary.

Another place where image-stabilization helps is with camcorders.
When photographing nervous little birds with a camcorder, the
twitchiness of tiny birds adds to the interest of the resultant
video. But with the lens cranked to a long telephoto mode, you just
can't hold it steady enough to make the resultant video easy to view.
You could use a tripod, but that defeats the purpose of a
lightweight, easy to carry camcorder. So image-stabilization is an
appropriate technology here.

So that's my updated view and I'm sticking to it.

Lee Rentz
lee at leerentz.com
Shelton WA