How exactly did you come to that conclusion?
Explaining the benefits of something doesn't automatically make you "really, really like" something.
I can enjoy image stabilization if it's available. I don't complain when it's not.And so have everyone else for the past 27 years.
Doesn't change that it's a new, welcome feature to have, should you need it.Again with an implied message? I really hope that is only a jab and not intended because that would be really of poor taste.
The simple fact of explaining something doesn't automatically make you an advocate of it.
No, your right! Explaining something doesn't automatically make you anything at all, but maybe the following quotes from just one of your posts might give a reasonable person the idea that you really, really like image stabilization (and that is not an insult... fer crying out loud.)
TWLreal said:
For a static scene, image stabilization affords you the luxury of stopping down your aperture in order to increase depth-of-field or using a lower ISO in order to avoid noise, at the expense of a slower shutter speed that will theoretically be handled by said image stabilization.
Image stabilization isn't simply for long lenses. It's a feature that can be used for static scenes, even on wide lenses. It's there when you need it, with a minimal impact on image quality. It's an invisible monopod that you can take everywhere and anywhere. Just because some people have no need for it doesn't make a feature useless.
Image stabilization lets you go as low as almost a full second, mostly reliably, on static scenes. No amount of hand holding and steadying will let you do that on a reliable basis.
The beauty of image stabilization is that you don't have to carry those with you and can benefit from stabilization in places where tripods and monopods are forbidden.
It won't be as rock solid as a tripod but it's always there when you need it.
So forgive me if I somehow made the mistake of thinking you actually really liked image stabilization very much. I stand corrected... you don't really, really like it that much, and can live without it if need be... The interesting thing is, somehow that sounds a lot like me...
Maybe we're really on the same page after all? That's okay with me. Sometimes it just takes a while to figure that out...
And from your quote above: what's the deal with all the "implied messages" stuff you're going on about? You can't possible be that sensitive...can you?
Here's what I said which seems to have got you feeling a bit testy:
pdxflint said:
...I think the thread topic refers to Nikon mount options... of which image stabilization is only one of the considerations, not the only consideration, even though it is very important to you, obviously.
There are no hidden meanings, I promise. Nothing implied. It is what it is, straight up. Just read your own posts and words in defense of IS, and Canon (which wasn't even an option) while not tackling the question posed in the first place. If I want to say something to you, I'll just say it, don't worry about that. In this case, I was simply trying to bring the conversation back to the topic of the thread, which was in danger of getting seriously hijacked into a ridiculous argument about image stabilization, which you were an adamant proponent in favor of... period. Read your own posts. The implication appeared very clear to me, but if it was not true it's at least partly your fault for making such a strong case for IS, when I think most of us already understand how it works. If image stabilization is
not very important to you, and I misspoke when I said you really, really liked it, and you felt that to somehow to be a jab, or worse... then I apologize for any hurt feeling you may have. I'm sorry. Honest. I'm just trying to keep it real.
And, seriously TWL, I think you've made your point. Thank you. Now, can we get back to the original topic? Please...
PS: And I'd appreciate it if the next time I offer my own real-world experiences with equipment I use, such as the performance I get out of my Nikkor 17-55, or anything else for that matter, that you either choose to take me at my word, or keep your smug, amusement to yourself, and don't bother trying to "set the record straight" when it's my record, not yours. I don't really care what optical charts or reviews or you want to drag into this--it doesn't change my first hand experience. By dismissing my own personal experiences, told honestly, as nothing more than implied slams on Canon or IS or whatever, you're the one showing really insulting, and trollish behavior. And you know exactly what I mean. I just gotta call em like I see 'em. And again... if you read the topic, the original question was very clear. What would be the "Nikon equivalent" to the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8? If you don't have an opinion to this simple question, I think you're just trying to make waves. You know what you're up to, and I think I've seen it before on this forum.
