If you are not going to use a tripod than it is worth the money...

IS can literally be the difference between a usable shot and a blurry mess, especially at higher focal lengths. At telephoto ranges with no tripod, IS is worth the extra..

Gary.

Nikon D4050-1.818-5555-200VR..

I think when it's a matter of an extra $100 like that between Olympus E-410 and the 510 with IS, which works on every 4/3rds lens, it is definitely worth it..

But when it's 3 times that extra per lens, I would be thinking harder, and probably not seeing it as a bargain.Riley.

I like to think the bs can never be higher than the ah..

Even though there is just a $50.00 difference in price, I now know two people in the last month who selected the non-IS K110D over the virtually identical K100D due to it's lighter weight and, in their opinion, better balance in hand. Whatever camera models you're considering, do give yourself a chance to handle and operate them yourself before making a choice...

It really does depend what you are photographing. If you are using it as a tripod replacement for those moments of fabulous scenery then I'd say go ahead. If you want to photograph things that are moving and capture a little motion blur against a steady background then go ahead (advanced IS will also allow tracking but arguably this is not required)..

If, however, you are using IS to compensate for low light when subjects are moving then you will again no advantage from a tripod or IS and will need a better (faster) lens..

I've seen some great results with IS but it's not a cure all...

It's very much worth having. won't stop action of kids on a basketball court of course, but for all else, it's great..

Here's an example on a fairly inexpensive older generation Canon Zoom lens.....

Click Next after the below image to see IS ON.IS OFF: http://www.pbase.com/pdqgp/image/17489598.

If the lens you choose is the newer version, you can use it in panning mode too, thus shutting off the side to side mov't but keeping the IS on for reduction of Up and Down mov't. Especially helpful when using slow shutter speeds.http://www.pbase.com/pdqgp/image/80636359http://www.pbase.com/pdqgp/image/35186985http://www.pbase.com/pdqgp/image/35185637.

SteveBWV wrote:.

I own a Canon PowerShot S40 and want to make the move to the nextlevel. SLRs are a new thing for me. I'm looking to buy a Canon xtiwith an additional zoom lens in the 300mm range. Is it worth theextra money to buy a lens with Image Stabilization? I take apictures in a wide variety of settings and I rarely use a tripod..

TimColumbus, Ohiohttp://www.pbase.com/pdqgp..

Nick askew wrote:.

It really does depend what you are photographing. If you are using itas a tripod replacement for those moments of fabulous scenery thenI'd say go ahead. If you want to photograph things that are movingand capture a little motion blur against a steady background then goahead (advanced IS will also allow tracking but arguably this is notrequired)..

If, however, you are using IS to compensate for low light whensubjects are moving then you will again no advantage from a tripod orIS and will need a better (faster) lens..

I've seen some great results with IS but it's not a cure all..

Actually that not quite right.

There are some variations to IS technology, Im not up with all that is around but I know that Olympus E-510 and Panasonic L1 have a panning mode for IS that only accounts for movements in the vertical axis. Allowing you to track a moving subject.Riley.

I like to think the bs can never be higher than the ah..

I frequently use IS in good light to get higher f numbers with slower shutter speeds. I need the higher f numbers to get more DoF. Thus, for shots with limited motion where a tripod is not used, IS can be used to get more DoF.Leonhttp://homepage.mac.com/leonwittwer/landscapes.htm..

Having read the DPReview tests carefully,It seems to buy you 2-3 stops on the compact digicams,but only perhaps 1 stop for the built-in systems on DSLRs.So- not nearly as much of an advantage..

I'd expect that the expensive optically stabilized lenses do a bit better..

Plus- it's something else to go wrong, and potentially make the camera less rugged (more complexity).

So- there really are pros and cons..

I'd say you're better off investing in a better (brighter) lens than the kit lens that goes with the XTi, which, frankly, isn't the best choice..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Looking at anything with a handheld camera at 300mm is very tough to do. The camera moves alot even with a steady hand at that focal length. My Nikon 70-300VR stops the movement and I would never go back to a lens without it. It's not a gimmick..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

There is a good thread going on this topic on the Sony SLR forum you might want to check. Canon makes claims that it is more effective in lens. These claims are unsubstantiated and open to a lot of discussion.As this is a Beginners Forum I have two thoughts to present:.

1. IS Does work, typically 2-3 stops difference with both systems. Built in works with all lenses. The only real difference is that with in lens you see it happening before you take the picture, with in camera you don'tbut the results are much the same, even a long focal lengths. How many beginners are going to invest in expensive lenses to get this feature?.

2. Camera motion produced by poor technique or in hurried shot ruins more photographs with modern cameras than anything other than poor composition. IS will reduce the percent of thisespecially for beginning photographers. A steady handed pro may not need it, but it has sure improved my percentage of good pictures..

I use a KM5D and have been into SLR photography for around 40 years and have defnitely benefited from IS. Which system is up to youbut the answer to the origional question of whether it is worth the extra bucks is a DEFINITE YES...

I cannot imagine why anyone wouldn't want the ability to shot 2 or 3 stops faster for around the price of a good tripod..

Consider how much of a premium you pay for a single IS lens..

Now consider spending a few extra dollars to have in-body IS, so ALL your lenses are image stabilized..

And if anyone points out those rare times when "it's better to not have image stabilization" then remember, you can always switch it off..

There is a good reason that IS is being built in to many of the newest DSLRs.It really works!MartyPanasonic FZ20,Panasonic FZ7,Olympus C7000,Leica M3..

IS is useful. It does not do everything and I question if people have become over-dependent on it. I've had IS and am quite happy without it. People have shot for a long time without it..

But if you can have it for a reasonable price, why not get it ? .

I think you also need to know that the general consensus is that stabilized lenses are better at long range than stabilized bodies. But stabilized lenses are considerably more expensive than stabilized bodies, and you can turn off the body stabilization to use a stabilized lens if you need to..

Essential - no. Useful, yes in some cases..

StephenG.

Fuji S9600Fuji S5200Fuji F30Fuji E900Canon A710ISPCLinuxOS..

This seems to be the general consensus among Canon users who keep telling us this. I have yet to see any real evidence of it. I know for a fact at 300mm it makes a real difference. How many beginning photographers are going beyond this anyway?.

The stabilized cameras are not that much more expensive, especially when you compare them with equal quality cameras and stabilized lenses are a LOT more expensive..

Camera unsteadyness is more likely among beginning photographers and they are the ones who will be aided the most by this feature. This is the group addressed in this forum. Why advise them away from a feature that will help them have a higher percentage of good pictures?..