Originally posted by windhorse In theory this makes sense but in reality no two hand held shots can be replicated the same due to the variation in hand shake and doing such a test on a tripod is a different kettle of fish
I'm not sure why... if SR messes up IQ, it should mess it up on a tripod. Yesterday I had a whole 13 burst sequences in sharp focus using my DA*60-250 and 1.4 TC at 350mm and 1/25 of a second. So I am really sceptical. I'm going to say right up front here, without fear of contradition, these images taken without SR would be a wash. Probably 100% of them.
If you're arguing that SR doesn't help images hand held, ok, now I'm really sceptical. First of all, up to 1/1000 of a second, you can tell the difference between hand held and tripod mounted images. (You may be able to tell up to 1/8000 second too, I just haven't seen a test for that.) So, hand held for most images, you are already talking about a certain amount of blur....now you're going to try and differentiate between motion blur caused by camera movement and blur caused by SR?
I simply am not seeing the kind of rigour you'd need to make a statement like "SR blurs your images at high shutter speeds." What are you talking about? Your impressions based on what?
So what I see, is leaving SR off for dubious reasons, as opposed to leaving it on for obvious reasons, and probably missing shots because of it.
Has anyone an example of an image they think was ruined by in camera SR?