Vibration Reduction (VR) is THE BEST!

[nathantw]

I agree 100%, VR rocks.

Yes, the shots could have been better with a tripod in your case (and many in this thread apparantly like to point out the obvious in that regard). But you forgot yours. Thanks to VR, you were still able to get decent shots. Others in this thread would rather have not even bothered taking the shot. IMO, that's worse, a poor picture always has better IQ than no shot at all!

I actually didn't actually forget my tripod, I just conveniently forgot to bring it. You're absolutely right that it is better to have something than nothing at all. I remember when I was younger and absolute quality was the priority and nothing else would do. The all or nothing attitude. I missed a lot of shots I wished I had. Or I'd spend so much time fiddling with my equipment or trying to get just the right angle that I'd miss the shot or if it didn't meet my criteria I'd be extremely disappointed. However, decades later I look at the slides or prints if I were shooting negatives and I tell myself "hey, those aren't half bad" or "I'm glad I took that" and it brought back a lot of memories.

You've experienced "what is possible", and one of the major reasons I shoot DSLRs. Many are interested in creating the best possible pictures. I prefer to "capture the moment". Many times you don't have ideal situations/lighting/support. Rather than choosing not to shoot (due to a lack of something, say a tripod), I shoot anyway, and enjoy the technical marvels that allow the shot to be possible .

Absolutely right!

An example is a shot I took in the burial chamber in a tomb in Egypt. This shot is pretty bad for a variety of reasons. I couldn't use a tripod or flash, without getting into serious trouble. But, because of my Tamron VC and the high ISO capability of my D90, I was able to get a shot:

I don't think there's anything wrong with your picture at all. If you put it in context with other pictures taken in the same area it tells a story. You got what we see and I think it's great that there aren't really any technical problems with it. Having the capable equipment and using it to capturing the image was what mattered.

Is that a great shot? Of course not! (camera shake blur not fully corrected by VC, misfocus, high ISO noise). But I now have a shot of the roof of a burial chamber in a pyramid. Had I let concerns about the IQ get in the way, I'd not have even had that shot! (or I might have been arrested for using a flash or smuggling a tripod in)

Exactly.

It's not always about getting the maximum quality shot. Sometimes it's about getting a shot in a very difficult situation. That is why I love VR/VC/OS, it allows you to push the envelope of what shots are possible.

I agree with you 100%.

 

[nathantw]

Glad to see someone else gets enjoyment from finding out what's possible with modern technology. Sometimes it's really cool to get a shot that years ago wouldn't have been possible at all, or would require extra equipment.

I love VR for the freedom and flexibility it gives me. Just like a zoom lens, it helps get the equipment out of the way so you're not fussing with equipment and are just taking pictures. I hate tripods for that reason, I prefer to be able to walk around, and take a shot quickly w/o having to "set up". I use zooms vs my nice primes for the same reason, sometimes I don't want the hassle of swapping lenses.

It's obvious that many in this thread missed the point of your thread. It's also funny to see them state what is obvious, of course a tripod would make for better pictures. Why do people feel the need to do that, and why can't people see past their own photography styles to see what you're talking about?

Exactly! I spent pretty much all my photographic life using prime lenses. The only zoom I had was a Nikon 75-150 and I rarely used it, though it's being used a LOT now that I have a Gigapan. I hated zooms because they were slow, they had distortion, and they were heavy. I then got the 28-300 when it came out and it had all the bells and whistles that new lenses contain. It was an eye opening experience, especially the VR (obviously). Now I wish all my lenses had VR built in, but I'm sure that'll make all my prime lenses heavier, but dang it, I wouldn't need to carry a tripod everywhere.

I remember carrying my Gitzo 224 with heavy-a$$ head everywhere I went. I went hiking, uphill no less, with that and a motorized Hasselblad, 2 lenses, two film backs, a prism, etc. That was easily 15 pounds worth of gear that was slung over my shoulder in a camera bag! It was really, really hard. Now I can just carry a D700 with one lens and that's basically it. If I want a tripod I can use a lightweight Gorillapod. However, if I'm hiking uphill for long periods of time, even a D700 and the lens is really heavy. However, the point is that I don't need to carry all that gear now. Technology has brought me that freedom and it's great!

 

[gmosc]

Nathan,

Your tripod shots made me smile. Your original shots including the full size version make me turn my head and think, why did he post those shots? Didn't he shoot anything more interesting on that evening to post? (one fireworks shot was nice)

And the tripod shots make me think even more, that a guy who can take such nice shots and has been shooting for years (you wrote) it makes me feel like you have lost your filter and will show really mediocre shots to prove your point.

And shoot me, but I get a TERRIBLE feeling that you borrowed somebody's tripod shots because the quality of the shots seem to have no connection with your original shots. But I think what happened is that you've been blinded sooo much by being able to shoot such low shutter speeds that you've have lost your sense of quality because the original shots REALLY are nothing I would ever show to anybody and I'm just a hobbyist.

But I will admit I took some out of focus shots of my cellar ceiling to show vignetting on this forum, but I was under pressure to prove a concept. Maybe I'm just as guilty as you for posting similar unmemorable stuff.

You could easily silence all your critics by posting some nice shots from your evening out. The tomb picture the other guy posted is a perfect example of how VR was instrumental in getting a shot.

I think Leonard, after learning that you are not an rank amateur will even be a little confused at your first shots. I think he was giving you a pass because he thought your were a beginner.

Looking forward to better stuff.

Guy Moscoso

I agree 100%, VR rocks.

Yes, the shots could have been better with a tripod in your case (and many in this thread apparantly like to point out the obvious in that regard). But you forgot yours. Thanks to VR, you were still able to get decent shots. Others in this thread would rather have not even bothered taking the shot. IMO, that's worse, a poor picture always has better IQ than no shot at all!

I actually didn't actually forget my tripod, I just conveniently forgot to bring it. You're absolutely right that it is better to have something than nothing at all. I remember when I was younger and absolute quality was the priority and nothing else would do. The all or nothing attitude. I missed a lot of shots I wished I had. Or I'd spend so much time fiddling with my equipment or trying to get just the right angle that I'd miss the shot or if it didn't meet my criteria I'd be extremely disappointed. However, decades later I look at the slides or prints if I were shooting negatives and I tell myself "hey, those aren't half bad" or "I'm glad I took that" and it brought back a lot of memories.

You've experienced "what is possible", and one of the major reasons I shoot DSLRs. Many are interested in creating the best possible pictures. I prefer to "capture the moment". Many times you don't have ideal situations/lighting/support. Rather than choosing not to shoot (due to a lack of something, say a tripod), I shoot anyway, and enjoy the technical marvels that allow the shot to be possible .

Absolutely right!

An example is a shot I took in the burial chamber in a tomb in Egypt. This shot is pretty bad for a variety of reasons. I couldn't use a tripod or flash, without getting into serious trouble. But, because of my Tamron VC and the high ISO capability of my D90, I was able to get a shot:

I don't think there's anything wrong with your picture at all. If you put it in context with other pictures taken in the same area it tells a story. You got what we see and I think it's great that there aren't really any technical problems with it. Having the capable equipment and using it to capturing the image was what mattered.

Is that a great shot? Of course not! (camera shake blur not fully corrected by VC, misfocus, high ISO noise). But I now have a shot of the roof of a burial chamber in a pyramid. Had I let concerns about the IQ get in the way, I'd not have even had that shot! (or I might have been arrested for using a flash or smuggling a tripod in)

Exactly.

It's not always about getting the maximum quality shot. Sometimes it's about getting a shot in a very difficult situation. That is why I love VR/VC/OS, it allows you to push the envelope of what shots are possible.

I agree with you 100%.

 

[260684]

It appears that some of you that are reporting seeing "grainy" pictures don't seem to have their monitors calibrated properly because the pictures look grainy to you then your brightness is turned too high. They look fine on 4 different calibrated displays I looked at them on.

Also if you use your camera at ISO 3200 - 6400 and they're grain free, then you're definitely not using a Nikon camera. So many of you are touted how great the D700 was using high ISO's but when you actually see a picture using those speeds you criticize it. If that's not calling the kettle black I don't know what is.

I understand it's hard to judge pictures when they're small, so here are the larger pictures. I think you'll find that your initial criticisms about sharpness might change. I think what's going on here is that you saw I was using a 28-300 zoom and the initial knee jerk reaction was "well, if it's not a $5000 lens then it has to be soft."

If your mind isn't changed after seeing the larger photos, well, we were talking about camera shake and not lens sharpness or composition. ;-)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nathantw/5903645165/sizes/l/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nathantw/5903642329/sizes/l/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nathantw/5903645883/sizes/l/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nathantw/5903644853/sizes/l/in/photostream/

Shots at high ISO in the dark. What do you want us to say about them? Great - you did not bring or use your tripod. But in doing so you sacrificed alot of quality and they are just snapshots because of it (although that's not the only thing making them appear as just snapshots).

 

[nathantw]

Hi Guy,

Thanks for your message. Nah, I didn't steal anyone's pictures. I actually did take them and I realized after I posted the tripod shots that I shouldn't have because it had nothing to do with fireworks, but I was kind of irritated that people seemed to assume I didn't know what tripod was, let alone was a beginner.

Why I posted my original pictures without any "real" firework pictures is because everyone posted them since it was the 4th of July. I decided to post some different shots. Those are the shots I got that night. I used slow shutter speeds handheld that were pretty unheard of years ago especially with a 300mm lens. I thought it would be good to show examples. If you're embarrassed for me for posting them, then thanks for taking the bullet for me. Personally, I'm not embarrassed because I was making a point that VR works well with slow shutter speeds. I didn't care if the pictures were great or not. I was using them as examples.

If I didn't post any picture examples whatsoever would we be having this discussion? Doubt it. Pictures are worth a thousand words.

I think I proved the point I was after, which was that we (or I) could hand hold and take movement shake free photos down to 1/6 second. Do that with a prime lens that doesn't have VR and see how your photos come out.

 

[nathantw]

Well, then, I just did the work for you or someone else. Now you know how your photos will look with at high ISO with VR. I guess I can say don't try this at home.

Shots at high ISO in the dark. What do you want us to say about them? Great - you did not bring or use your tripod. But in doing so you sacrificed alot of quality and they are just snapshots because of it (although that's not the only thing making them appear as just snapshots).

 

[Hawkeyezz]

I would certaily advocate the utility of VR. I used it so effectively to shoot an indoor concert with slow shutter speed. I was sitting quite far from the stage and even with a focal lenght of around 250 to 300mm, the VR performed so well. It was pitch dark and the only light source were the stage lights.

I shot them with a D90 with 70-300mm VR2. I just love that lense. Here are few of the examples.

I have not used any noise reduction on these pics. I suggest if you can use the Lightroom 3.4 noise reduction with a VR, it will be even better. It would have not been possible to shoot an action at such slow shutter speeds on such long focal lenghts with a lense not as fast had it not been equiped with a VR. Love the VR on my 16-85mm as well.

 

[gmosc]

This might be my last comments on this thread.

1) I don't know who this artist is so I get no thrill at seeing that he is on stage with a guitar.
2) These pictures are worth having only to prove that you were at the concert.

3) If I showed any of these pictures or the OP's first pictures, I would feel I was committing the stereotypical classic sin of dragging out the slide projector to show family vacation photos to a captive audience.

This thread is going to turn into a boring "me too" parade of snapshots with DSLRs to prove to wifes and photographers themsleves that this slow VR lens they purchased is great in low light. I REALLY don't see any self critique in any of these photos "proving" how wonderful VR is. There MUST be better examples out there.

The only picture that proved the value of VR (or actually third party equivalent) is the tomb picture. YES there ARE pictures proving that VR is valuable, but these pictures (including the OP's) are proof only that the thrill of getting a shot at a slow shutter speed makes good photographers become blind during their sorting process. I gotta say that people need to turn off the EXIF when they are doing their first sort. NONE of these pictures would have survived my first sort and would never be shown as proof of anything.

Probably what is wrong with this thread is the original title. The people who know how to get the best out of VR aren't WOWed by the original title and probably are even turned off by the exaggeration in it and wouldn't even click on it. I don't see any future in this thread.

Please don't feel insulted (Hawkeyezz or OP) , but rather drag up some even slightly interesting pictures to show the value of VR. I KNOW it's possible. Show us the goods.

Maybe I'm jaded, I don't know.

Guy Moscoso

I would certaily advocate the utility of VR. I used it so effectively to shoot an indoor concert with slow shutter speed. I was sitting quite far from the stage and even with a focal lenght of around 250 to 300mm, the VR performed so well. It was pitch dark and the only light source were the stage lights.

I shot them with a D90 with 70-300mm VR2. I just love that lense. Here are few of the examples.

I have not used any noise reduction on these pics. I suggest if you can use the Lightroom 3.4 noise reduction with a VR, it will be even better. It would have not been possible to shoot an action at such slow shutter speeds on such long focal lenghts with a lense not as fast had it not been equiped with a VR. Love the VR on my 16-85mm as well.

 

[Hawkeyezz]

Well ! Thank you for your critic. I never said that those came out tack sharp but just wanted to make a point the usage of VR does help one shoot at lower shutter speed and it surely is a plus. Shooting it at around 300mm focal lenght with very low light conditions, I think its worth having those pics than no pics at all. I did not enter them in any competition nor intend to do but i was pleasantly surprised with a VR addition of the lense as I am yet to progress to own a f/2.8 fixed lense.

Would you enlighten us with any of the better usage of a VR. Please share a photo or two to help us understand your view in a more constructive way. An please do not take this offensive as the only purpose to reply to your post was to request for any better detail VR taken images you can share.

Look forward in hearing from you to make this "boring" post a little bit worth our time.

 

[gmosc]

My two VR lenses died. (2 copies of the 55-200VR)

I was starting to use VR to make the DOF wider so pictures from the side of the stage would allow duos to be in focus. My primes wouldn't allow me to do that EVEN on a tripod because mirror slap seriously comes into play. That's where the VR for me was starting to help. The keeper rate was atrocious but by taking lots of pictures there would easily be a couple that would be shots that would be impossible to take without the VR. (D50 body) Both singers could be in focus. But since that time, I've gotten a body that can compensate for mirror slap (D700) using mirror lock up or pseudo mirror lock up (which is even better implemented on the D90 if you ask me. I wanted the D90's half second delay, not the full second of the D700).

I would love to have more VR lenses to get back to those wider dof shots (hand held and tripod) so I wouldn't have to use pseudo mirror lock up.

For comparison, a series of 4 pictures using pseudo mirror lock up (without VR) will take 4 seconds or more. Using VR you can just hold the shutter down and machine gun it and get over 10 shots in that same time. There would be lots to choose from. Yes the percentage of keepers will go down to maybe 1 in ten or 2 in ten, but it is well worth it to get a shot with more than a hair thin DOF in focus of a single musician.

Since I am in a good position to take pictures of the musicians I know, I am allowed to take flash pictures, so I am taking advantage of that for the time being. That gives me the wider DOF that VR would allow. So I'm set for now (until I get tempted by a second hand third party midrange zoom with VR.) By then I'll be tired of flash pictures and I'll be espousing my happiness with VR lenses, too.

For now the onus will be on you guys to put the tempting pictures of tough to get pictures where VR will help. You guys must have them, but unfortunately all but the pyramid ceiling picture fall short of the mark.

I'll see if I can dig up those last pics I took before my VR died to give a couple of examples of VR vs prime.... Wish me luck.....

Guy Moscoso

Well ! Thank you for your critic. I never said that those came out tack sharp but just wanted to make a point the usage of VR does help one shoot at lower shutter speed and it surely is a plus. Shooting it at around 300mm focal lenght with very low light conditions, I think its worth having those pics than no pics at all. I did not enter them in any competition nor intend to do but i was pleasantly surprised with a VR addition of the lense as I am yet to progress to own a f/2.8 fixed lense.

Would you enlighten us with any of the better usage of a VR. Please share a photo or two to help us understand your view in a more constructive way. An please do not take this offensive as the only purpose to reply to your post was to request for any better detail VR taken images you can share.

Look forward in hearing from you to make this "boring" post a little bit worth our time.

 

[nathantw]

Guy,

I just checked out the photos in your gallery to find out just to find out what would be considered worthy of being posted also to see who was being "bored" by the pictures being posted. After seeing the pictures you have....well, hmmm, let's just say I guess it's fine art you're after.

I'll just restate what I said earlier, if you like the photos, great, but if you don't well, this was just trying to show what VR is capable of at slow shutter speeds.

Have a great weekend.

 

[Mannypr]

Once did a test with tripod with no VR and hand held with VR. The tripod was sharper all the time. VR is no substitute for a good tripod.

 

[Skywalker23]

We are so surprised at your conclusion; try reading into the thread a little more

Once did a test with tripod with no VR and hand held with VR. The tripod was sharper all the time. VR is no substitute for a good tripod.

--
Visit my Flickr!!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/argonalex/

I own two lenses which are older than I am.

 

[Mako2011]

VR is no substitute for a good tripod.

Actually, more often than not it actually is....."excuse me, could you hold that pose while I run back to my house and get a good tripod?"

 

[gmosc]

Nathan, I didn't start a thread with an overblown headline. If you want to see some of my snaphots that I share with my friends, you can look at these links.

I don't consider my snaps worth posting on Dpreview but I hope you find a couple that might be interesting. These are more interesting than the shot of a ceiling in my dpreview gallery which you probably saw.

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.431429889918.219329.592909918

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150129724854919.321524.592909918

GuyMoscoso

Guy,

I just checked out the photos in your gallery to find out just to find out what would be considered worthy of being posted also to see who was being "bored" by the pictures being posted. After seeing the pictures you have....well, hmmm, let's just say I guess it's fine art you're after.

I'll just restate what I said earlier, if you like the photos, great, but if you don't well, this was just trying to show what VR is capable of at slow shutter speeds.

Have a great weekend.

 

[gmosc]

And Nathan, I'm sorry that these shots have nothing to do with my experience with VR. I have actually used a couple of hours to search for my last set before my VR lenses died (the VR died and I had a ton of lousy test shots that I still haven't sorted through)

So please don't feel that I've forgotten you guys on this thread.

And you can critique my shots if you want. I've still got lots to learn.

Guy Moscoso

 

[shigzeo]

This is a very interesting thread. I read quickly through the OP's first post and thought that the OP was a newbie. At first. Then, I put my reading brain on (instead of my stupid forum reader's brain on) and realised that he just wanted to show what can be done with VR.

Well done, OP.

You showed what can be done.

I've been amazed by VR, also, getting once 1/8 second perfectly sharp photo, but it was in brighter light than what you took. Your work is far better than mine with VR lenses.

Eventually, I found that I preferred shooting small lenses, and that meant older primes. The newer ones are nice and the VR ones are phenomenal, but they are so large, and so heavy.

Naturally, I am looking to shoot at 1/60 or faster to get reasonably sharp shots. Sometimes I get very lucky with 1/15, but usually I feel like I won the lottery with 1/30.

My name is also Nathan. Congrats on that.

You proved very well what can be done both with VR and when you have the time and don't mind carrying a freaking car with you up a mountain, a tripod. I have a Gitzo 3 series that I carry with a 28 2,8 AiS, a 105 2,5 AiS, and a 50 1,2 (although I leave that at home often when hiking) in my Deuter trekking bag. It is heavy, but not 15 lbs. I think my total is about 4-4,5 kilos plus the rucksack.

Not light, but not killer, especially since I don't use a camera bag (those things have horrid hiking ergonomics). I am 31, but I think I've grown up. I don't feel like pushing my body insanely. Some 30 years olds still do. Hopefully, we are all growing up together.

As you know, there are some applications where nothing but a tripod will do. But as you pointed out, a picture is much better than no picture at all (something that happens when you spend forever dishing stuff out of your endless trekking bag.

I enjoy your flickr and your thread.

To the forumers who just have to attack someone with 'you did this wrong' holier than thou stuff, lighten up. If the OP went off mentioning that he was the bestest pro photographer in the world and that what he takes is your textbook, then there might be some reason to criticise his shots.

BUT, he didn't. The OP proved in his own message that VR works for the shots he took and in my opinion, has proven himself as a quality photographer as well. Good on you.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/shigzeo/
Advice/criticism/appreciation appreciated!

 

[Hawkeyezz]

Dear Guy Moscoso,

Just thought of enlighening you further. The artist in my initial post at the concert is Richard Marx. Here is the link to his wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Marx

And the song I would recommend you to hear is Hazard (which is more like this thread now). Following is the youtube link to its video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdmHHoI9beM

And with reference to your photos, please bar in mind that you focal lenght was way shorter than mine. It seems you were shooting right off the stage. I was shooting at around 270mm to 300mm and in almost total darkest. So the VR was very helpful sinc eI could not carry the tripod at the concert. As the rule states, to freeze a human motion, it is suggested to have 1/focal lenght of a sec as your shutter speed. In my case, the focal lenght was around 250 region, so due to the VR, it gave me almost 4 stops advantage as claimed by Nikon in regards to the VR advantage. If you have notice the shutter speed on my photos, it was in the region of 1/15 to 1/30.

So as the Op suggested that VR is often an advantage, I would +1 the thread. We are certainly keeping our finger crossed for a a couple of photos from you with a defination of TRUE VR utlity.

And lastly, I do not know the artist in your post, so kindly tell me their name and I may look up for their music on youtube. At least if you are unable to share your version of VR photos, it woud make us feel less wasted on replying to your posts by hearing some fresh music.

Cheers,

Omar K. Mashedy

 

[gmosc]

Omar,

Thanks for the link. Yeah OK I've heard Richard Marx's sound before (on the radio) but would embarrass myself if I met him in person because I don't know what he looks like!

In My pics the most intesting figure is probably Jarle Bernhoft

This is Jarle Berhoft, He is from Finland and does a one man thing on stage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjEsAEsYCw4&feature=related

As I was lookng for vids of guitarist Perry Stenbäck I found this vid. It's from the day I was shooting the pics. And as a bonus, I was called onto stage to play sax. It was a blues jam so we had never played together.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIi07iLI_yI

Lots of the other people are up and coming (or fairly established Danish Jazz musicians, so the pictures are mostly for us and have little interest outside of our circle. I go to other concerts to get pics and musical inspiration.

As for posting these pictures (which I have never done on dpreview before) They were for Nathan to show that I have couple of pictures more than the gallery on Dpreview. They have little to do with the VR discussion, but he forced me to post something since he needed to know who he was communicating with.

Guy Moscoso

Dear Guy Moscoso,

Just thought of enlighening you further. The artist in my initial post at the concert is Richard Marx. Here is the link to his wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Marx

And the song I would recommend you to hear is Hazard (which is more like this thread now). Following is the youtube link to its video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdmHHoI9beM

And with reference to your photos, please bar in mind that you focal lenght was way shorter than mine. It seems you were shooting right off the stage. I was shooting at around 270mm to 300mm and in almost total darkest. So the VR was very helpful sinc eI could not carry the tripod at the concert. As the rule states, to freeze a human motion, it is suggested to have 1/focal lenght of a sec as your shutter speed. In my case, the focal lenght was around 250 region, so due to the VR, it gave me almost 4 stops advantage as claimed by Nikon in regards to the VR advantage. If you have notice the shutter speed on my photos, it was in the region of 1/15 to 1/30.

So as the Op suggested that VR is often an advantage, I would +1 the thread. We are certainly keeping our finger crossed for a a couple of photos from you with a defination of TRUE VR utlity.

And lastly, I do not know the artist in your post, so kindly tell me their name and I may look up for their music on youtube. At least if you are unable to share your version of VR photos, it woud make us feel less wasted on replying to your posts by hearing some fresh music.

Cheers,

Omar K. Mashedy

 

[Clayton1985]

The replies in this thread are confusing. So many seem to be comparing the VR shots to what they would have been with a tripod. I understood the comparison to be between shots taken with a lens with VR vs one without. Assuming I'm interpreting the OPs post correctly I think the tripod comments and discussion are irrelevant. I haven't read all of the replies but I suspect even the OP would agree that a tripod would have produced better results.

And whether the OPs examples are noisy, not sharp enough, not interesting, etc doesn't really matter as they do show improvements over what the results would have been without VR (and without a tripod...). With a little imagination you should be able to determine what VR could do for you..... don't like the noise at ISO6400 then don't use ISO6400.... don't think 1/6 with VR is fast enough then don't shoot at 1/6. VR is a tool just like the other hundreds of tools we use, you decide when it works for you. Shoot 100% on a tripod and we can all agree you will never need VR