Karen Nakamura wrote:
>
> True, but if you're taking landscapes without a tripod, well..... to be
> blunt, you're an idiot.
>
> Also, most landscapes are taken with relatively short focal lengths, thus
> reducing the need and effect of IS.
>
> For good landscapes:
> * Good prime
> * Short focal length
> * Small aperture, diffraction limited
> * Less glass (== no IS) == better
> * Bigger negative (medium/large format) == better
> * Tripod is a necessity
>
> Karen
>
Watch it or your dogma could get run over.<G> I have often shot
landscapes with out a tripod, for a variety of reasons. Inability to
find a spot, or spots, to put a trio of legs, inconvenience of lugging a
'pod around, need to shoot quickly. Be careful of who you call an
idiot, even if unintentionally. You may find yourself in the position
of shooting a landscape with out a tripod, and wish you had another
option. IS will never completely replace a tripod for me, but every time
I'm out shooting, I find a time when I silently thank the Canon
engineers for developing it.
Skip
--
Shadowcatcher Imagery
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
