image stabilization (why I'm not fussed about it)

People seem to place a great importance on image stabilisation in their camera choices. Personally I don't find it of much use. For video its impressive, that's for sure, but for stills I'm unimpressed. Perhaps there is a few situations where it makes a difference (especially for those who can't hold a camera steady or who stab the shutter button like the shower scene from Psycho)

But for me I find that the biggest problem with lower shutter speeds is subject movement. And just like the replicant Roy in Blade runner, IS is just not helping.

A classic example:

Nothing wrong with the rest of the image, but unless you want people to pose like statues you just have to accept that there is no substitute for shutter speed.

In the above example perhaps the pillow could have been a bit sharper indicating that I moved somewhat, but it still wouldn't have helped much on getting the person any sharper and capturing the emotions. ISO was already maxed out on the camera and I was using f2.8 too.

I guess if I'd have had a camera like the A7 I could have used a higher ISO again (like 12,800 which is more or less 2 stops) and would have given me 60th instead of 15th ... might have just made it less blurry but blurry all the same.

I'll leave you with one that was hand held at 1/4th of a second