I read that the digital SLRs have image stabilization in the camera itself or in the lenses. I'm wondering if digital cameras need image stabilization more than film SLRs did or is this just an enhanced feature? Does it have anything to do with the rapid rate at which these cameras take pictures? Does it lead to less need for tripods than with film SLRs?
Linda said it best. Aside from her gentle diss of Nikon :)
I almost always have the image stabilization on my lenses turned on - Nikon calls it VR on their lenses, it stands for "vibration reduction". No matter if it's Canon, Nikon, or whatever they call it - it's a great feature. Even being semi-pro, I will admit a big fault to you guys - I am a shaky person. I try all the tricks to stabilize myself - I shoot with a wide stance, one leg behind me, camera body bottom pushed into my left shoulder to stabilize, left hand under lens on camera body to stabilize, take a deep breath in, exhale, focus, shoot. Even after all that I can see in the viewfinder that I'm a tad unsteady. Despite my balance issues :) I rarely get blurry shots unless that is my intent. The VR saves me every time. On my 70-300mm zoom, if I zoom to 300mm and shoot two pics, one with the VR on and one off, I can guarantee the VR off image will be blurred. The longer your zoom (i.e. 300mm, 400mm) the more chance of blur, and that's where the VR comes in really handy.
Linda is right - all the manuals tell you to turn it off if you are using a tripod because then the camera gets confused - it's basically expecting you to vibrate/move and if the camera is on a tripod and perfectly still it gets confused. I forgot about that once and was taking some landscapes and I got pretty frustrated that nothing was tack sharp until I realized that was my problem.....and yes I had pulled out the manual at the time........
Your camera stance technique reminds me of the Olympic cross country skiers, are they biathletes, who stop and shoot at targets every now and again while they try not to pant etc.