I've been seeing so many discussions in forums about the merits or the necessity of image stabilization. I'll start off by saying that I appreciate what this technology does for our ability to shoot in adverse conditions, hand holding our camera with amazingly low shutter speeds. Compared to many, I'm just a neophyte when it comes to photography, having gotten into it seriously maybe 10 years ago. As I grew in my understanding and upgraded my equipment, stabilization was never part of the equation. Being a Nikon shooter, I eventually had a D700 and shot regularly with a 12-24, 17-55, 24-70, 35, 50 ,85, 135 mm lens, none of which had stabilization - OK, I did have the 70-200 which did. I never felt at a disadvantage and did my best to learn good techniques in holding the camera. Now, it seems that we can't live with a camera that "only" has a 2-axis system, it has to be 5. We judge the merits of a system on whether it has stabilization in the body, or if it's in the lens... I don't know that there really is a moral to this story except that - isn't technology grand?