it's all about the decisive moment. sound familiar? can't be a slug or you'll miss it.
Yep, I don't know what Cartier-Bresson would have done without image stabilization, in-camera metering, high shutter speeds and fast film/high ISO digital.
Wait, you mean the absolute max on an early Leica was 1/500? Film speeds were under 100?
Clearly no pictures of value could be taken under such conditions.
if you scale focus and track your subject's motion by walking at their pace, you really think 1/focal length is going to cut it?
Yes. The amount of movement generated by walking has very little to do with the movement of your hands or effect on the camera - this is why you can get 'camera shake' with a medium-format SLR (mirror slap) or a large format camera (wind catching in the bellows) even if they're on the world's sturdiest tripod.
or if something happens suddenly and have to flick the camera up to your eye?
Um, then I "flick the camera up to [my] eye" and push the shutter release. I don't know what you're trying to argue here...
if you don't care about minimizing camera shake, or freezing subject motion, for that matter, to get sharp photos, or if you and your subjects aren't moving much, then just ignore what i've been saying about image stabilization and fast shutter speeds. anyone who says they can get sharp photos handheld at slow shutter speeds either isn't taking photos of people, or is downplaying just how soft their pictures really are.
Image stabilization has fuck all to do with the freezing action - that's the greatest shortcoming (aside from being ineffectual) - if you're in a situation that requires handholding because of low-light, your subject will be moving. If whatever you're shooting isn't move, brace the damn camera.
Again, you don't appear to have a clue what you're talking about. There's a reason that the reciprocal has been the standard for 35mm cameras since they were invented. It works.