Is Image Stabilization feature important now?

[TrigunKenshin]

I have my eyes set on the Canon Powershot SD450. I like it because it's small and compact, stylish, and it just looks cool. Its currently at 275$ on Adorama.com. My only disappointment is that it doesnt have image stabilization, and it would be really awesome if it had it.

Now, I cant decide if I want the SD450 anymore. I'm only willing to spend $300 tops on a digital camera, and now that i've read about image stabilization, I figure it would be nice to have it.

Do I really need the image stabilization on my digital camera?

I figure I would be taking pictures of moving objects, or taking pictures of the different sites when I ride the tour bus, or going to sports events, that sort of deal.

What do you folks think. I really like the SD450, but it bugs me that it doesnt have image stabilization.

Any advice is appreciated, thanks.

[coldrain]

No, image stabilization for pics with moving subjects is useless. Image stabilization allows you to make photos with longer shutter times, but longer shutter times are useless for moving subjects because you will see motion blur.

[TrigunKenshin]

Cool, I didnt know that. Thanks for the info. I'll just wait for the SD600 which is supposedly coming out in March 2006 at the earliest.