I think that if you read the Andy Bright site above, and his comments, and then ask some of the folks who do this for a living, you just might hear that prior to VR/IS, the competiitive playing field was pretty equal and even. But with the advent of IS in Canon long tele's, the Canon shooters are now able to more easily to accomplish things than their Nikon counterparts, and this can easily equate to more image sales. I was speaking with another D2X Nature shooter just the other day who was talking about the difference between 5FPS with the D2X and 10 with the MkIII. The comment that was made was missing critical shots in a sequence, the apex of a leap, wings up vs. wings down, which now become competitive disadvantage.I'm stunned by all the discussions on this forum about people tossing their Nikon gear for Canon due to some technical tidbit that didn't exist a few years ago.
How did people ever get nature magazine covers published without VR? Good thing I only read Playboy.
Considering the cost of replacing (rather than supplementing) professional gear, but better be a LOT of money to make the swap. Even then, I think some folks may find that the grass isn't always greener. Improve upon this, lose out on that.
My comment on this topic has nothing to do with brand loyalty, though. I just wonder if the technology tidbits are simply there for impatient people. I love my VR lens because I get handheld shots that I wouldn't otherwise get without it...unless I took some time and used a tripod. VR (or IS) gets turned off with a tripod, right?
Well, how many of you guys are hand holding a 600mm lens to publish a nature shot? I'm sure it could happen, but is it worth several thousand dollars to replace otherwise excellent gear that doesn't have a feature you may use for a very small percentage of your shooting time?
I'm still learning and I don't make my money with photography. However, I do know the smell of gadget fever.