<<< Now I'd have liked to have shot this at ISO 100, but it wasn't going to happen. Especially on a windy day. Not only was the wind blowing my lens, but the birds feathers were blowing. >>> Well, I wasn't going to mention IS because 1) It's pret y good technology when used to improve good technique rather than replace it ;o) 2) As everyone knows (apart from the majority of IS users I read online) the "IS effect" only applies to static elements in the scene. It does not freeze subject move ent (eg your wind on the heron's feathers :) What was the ISO again? Ah, 400. On film that's not as sharp anyway. You shot this at 1/750 sec. It's hardly an IS test then is it (on a "400mm" lens). At 1/250 sec I would expect to get sharp non-IS images at 420mm every time - ithout a tripod but bracing the lens against fence, beanbag (IMO better than tripod) etc. Obviously IS should make that better. The aperture is odd too: F6.7. An artistic decision? Obviously F2.8 would have disadvantages (keeping the beak and ye in focus). I'd probably have shot at f4-f5.6 anyway. No, if I could swap my non IS 300 for an IS one I would. Sadly cost is *the* ISsue. Bob PS. I have tried IS versions of big lenses. What I didn't like was a perceptible delay ... PPS Is there a "quality vs ISO" page for the D10 up anywhere? Fancy putting one up? Same scene, same aperture at 100, 400 3200 ... needs to be a staged shot (tripod mounted for fairness ;o) as obviously a real bird is never in exactly the same pose. I'm interested in the "noise" you talk about.
