Reading mode: Light Dark

VR is an over rated gimmick

Go to last post
Why would you want to shoot a resolution targets with VR on? I would use a sturdy tripod for such targets. Go out in the world and use your equipment properly. No need for VR at all.
Kerry Pierce said:
Take some test shots of a good target, like a newspaper ad section,
at 200mm, with and without VR, hand held. Use Shutter priority and
set the shutter at about 1/60 to 1/100. Then do the same tests on
a monopod or a tripod with a loose ball head. Then compare the
photos.

If you can't see the value of VR after that, then you don't need VR
lenses. There are lots that don't have VR.

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
Click to expand...
 
User ability and experience are more important. Did you take one picture or a dozen to get those captures?

VR is a marketing gimmick, there are time-tested techniques that prove this. 1/15th is a luxury in many cases. Learn to adapt.
Pradipta Dutta said:
How else could I have made this shot handheld at 1/15 second (200mm)?



Or this shot handheld at 1/40 seconds (135mm)?



--
Speed is significant and interesting but accuracy is downright
fascinating
http://www.pbase.com/pradipta
Click to expand...
 
f128 said:
User ability and experience are more important. Did you take one
picture or a dozen to get those captures?
Click to expand...
Just one picture. Actually, having adopted digital late, I haven't been able to shed off my film habbit of not wasting shots particularly when processing charges were a stretch as a student.
f128 said:
VR is a marketing gimmick, there are time-tested techniques that
prove this. 1/15th is a luxury in many cases. Learn to adapt.
Click to expand...
Show me at least one of your shot made at 200mm without VR that is sharp at 1/15 seconds.

You learn to appreciate what is good.

--
Speed is significant and interesting but accuracy is downright fascinating
http://www.pbase.com/pradipta
 
f128 said:
Why would you want to shoot a resolution targets with VR on? I
would use a sturdy tripod for such targets. Go out in the world
and use your equipment properly. No need for VR at all.
Click to expand...
No one is arguing the fact that VR is not a replacement for tripod. But there are plenty of cases when you do not have time to set up the tripod when you are trying to track a running 2 year old. By the time you will set up the tripod, the golden moment will be gone.

--
Speed is significant and interesting but accuracy is downright fascinating
http://www.pbase.com/pradipta
 
BruceEvans said:
I'd prefer if Nikon left out the VR and lowered its prices or
substituted faster glass. But then that wouldn't compete against
the advertising of in-camera vibration reduction by the other
companies.
Click to expand...
Hey, I'm with you. In camera would be ideal. Faster glass translates to a larger aperture, which means the glass is typically larger. Just check out howthe 70-200 f/2.8 VR compares to the 18-200VR, as well as to the 200mm f2.
 
Nikon only provided VR as a courtesy to whiny users who envied Canon lusers. 400/500/600 lack of VR show Nikon's true feelings because real pros who can afford these lenses don't need VR.
Pradipta Dutta said:
Check it out here -
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=19818687

But similarly, tripod will not be able to support all the
situations when VR is truly handy.

--
Speed is significant and interesting but accuracy is downright
fascinating
http://www.pbase.com/pradipta
Click to expand...
 
I would just like to point out again that the expensive long Canon glass, with IS, is significantly cheaper that the Nikon glass with no VR. Why do you think that all the sports shooters use Canon ?
sting said:
BruceEvans said:
I'd prefer if Nikon left out the VR and lowered its prices or
substituted faster glass. But then that wouldn't compete against
the advertising of in-camera vibration reduction by the other
companies.
Click to expand...
Hey, I'm with you. In camera would be ideal. Faster glass
translates to a larger aperture, which means the glass is typically
larger. Just check out howthe 70-200 f/2.8 VR compares to the
18-200VR, as well as to the 200mm f2.
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/jola13
 
f128 said:
Nikon only provided VR as a courtesy to whiny users who envied
Canon lusers. 400/500/600 lack of VR show Nikon's true feelings
because real pros who can afford these lenses don't need VR.
Click to expand...
And, btw, both real and unreal pros will not run around with these heavy lenses to make handheld shots. It is a completely different ballgame with a smaller lens like the 70-200, which is significantly smaller and easily handholdable. You are comparing apples to oranges.

--
Speed is significant and interesting but accuracy is downright fascinating
http://www.pbase.com/pradipta
 
I don't have to prove anything to you. If you don't believe me, that's your problem. Unlike you, I am not hiding behind the "no name" anonymity of internet. If you wish, you are most welcome to take a look at my galleries where you will find many more such slow shutter speed shots at long focal lengths.

--
Speed is significant and interesting but accuracy is downright fascinating
http://www.pbase.com/pradipta
 
They shoot Canon because of Marketing, not raw Talent.
Jola013 said:
I would just like to point out again that the expensive long Canon
glass, with IS, is significantly cheaper that the Nikon glass with
no VR. Why do you think that all the sports shooters use Canon ?
Click to expand...
 
My experience, not my name, is what counts. You will understand in due time.
Pradipta Dutta said:
I don't have to prove anything to you. If you don't believe me,
that's your problem. Unlike you, I am not hiding behind the "no
name" anonymity of internet. If you wish, you are most welcome to
take a look at my galleries where you will find many more such slow
shutter speed shots at long focal lengths.

--
Speed is significant and interesting but accuracy is downright
fascinating
http://www.pbase.com/pradipta
Click to expand...
 
Why would you want to use a tripod on a 2-year old? Use a monopod with quick release plate if you are in such a rush.

My techniques provide enough stability so above solutions are unnecessary. YMMV.
Pradipta Dutta said:
f128 said:
Why would you want to shoot a resolution targets with VR on? I
would use a sturdy tripod for such targets. Go out in the world
and use your equipment properly. No need for VR at all.
Click to expand...
No one is arguing the fact that VR is not a replacement for tripod.
But there are plenty of cases when you do not have time to set up
the tripod when you are trying to track a running 2 year old. By
the time you will set up the tripod, the golden moment will be gone.

--
Speed is significant and interesting but accuracy is downright
fascinating
http://www.pbase.com/pradipta
Click to expand...
 
Proper use of stabilization techniques are required. Pros with 4/5/600 mm lenses don't make "handheld" shots, they use proper stabilization techniques because of lens size and weight. Sanctioned stabilization techniques make VR unnecessary.

70-200 is easy to tame at even the most extreme shutter speeds. Don't let the equipment control you.
Pradipta Dutta said:
f128 said:
Nikon only provided VR as a courtesy to whiny users who envied
Canon lusers. 400/500/600 lack of VR show Nikon's true feelings
because real pros who can afford these lenses don't need VR.
Click to expand...
And, btw, both real and unreal pros will not run around with these
heavy lenses to make handheld shots. It is a completely different
ballgame with a smaller lens like the 70-200, which is
significantly smaller and easily handholdable. You are comparing
apples to oranges.

--
Speed is significant and interesting but accuracy is downright
fascinating
http://www.pbase.com/pradipta
Click to expand...
 
f128 said:
70-200 is easy to tame at even the most extreme shutter speeds.
Don't let the equipment control you.
Click to expand...
Even on this thread, you have been asked before to show just one image shot handheld at 1/15 sec at 200mm. You very tactfully go around the topic. Again, show just one image.

--
Speed is significant and interesting but accuracy is downright fascinating
http://www.pbase.com/pradipta
 
Irrespective of marketing or talent, the Canon lenses are a lot cheaper, and they have IS.

And I have not seen any proof that the Nikon lenses are any better.
f128 said:
Jola013 said:
I would just like to point out again that the expensive long Canon
glass, with IS, is significantly cheaper that the Nikon glass with
no VR. Why do you think that all the sports shooters use Canon ?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/jola13
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Quandary on new lens for wildlife photography
2 3
Replies
44
Views
15K
Antony John
A
studio460
Nikon Nikkor Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S:
Replies
16
Views
7K
studio460
studio460
Tord S Eriksson
DeepSeek is coming!
Replies
13
Views
7K
Richard Dutton
R
M
ZF/Z8, which is "better" to pair with 28-400?
Replies
19
Views
2K
AlainCh2
AlainCh2
TheSoaringSprite
  • User review User review
Exactly the Lens I Wanted & Needed - Nikkor Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S
2
Replies
31
Views
13K
TheSoaringSprite
TheSoaringSprite

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top