How important is VR

this is the one and only situation i wish i had VR and i dont even know if it would have solved my problem.

when i am standing on something that is moving and taking pictures of something not moving.

i try to shoot cityscapes from bridges often but the trucks and busses shake the bridge as they drive by so even though i am using a tripod, i get movement.

everywhere else, my tripod is my VR!

Initzero,

One of the things that bother me about doreview is that when someone like yourself makes a statement like "I don't need VR", they always end up having to justify their opinion, as if this is some contest or test. I think people are entitled to their opinion and should not be attacked as if they have performed some Sacrilegious Act.

(Still couldn't resist the Ludite thing, but it was meant in pure jest to try to lighten things up)

With that said, just to try to set a context here, I guess I'm a little puzzled. I'm not asking you to "defend" yourself, just trying to see where your situation varies from my situation.

InitZero said:

Off the cuff, I'd say 65% of the photos taken with my
70-200 are well-lit and outside (speeds greater than 1/125).
The rest are night or inside (less than 1/125).
With my 180/2.8, 1/60 was about as low as I could go
with a good yield. 1/15 was where hand-holding ceased
to be a viable option.

Click to expand...

Although I understand perfectly that the 1/FL rule of thumb is exactly that- a rough guide to the average person, not some magic number, I do find that it is applicable to me. On a good day, without a 2nd or 5th cup of coffee, I can beat it by a couple stops. But on average, it's a good frame of reference.

At 1/FL I want to be on a tripod to make sure I get the images my glass will deliver, especially with my better glass.

I cannot shoot at 180mm with any lens (light prime or heavy 70-200) at anywhere near 1/60s with any consistency at all. I find that VR helps me even at 1/FL and higher. It raises my consistency if nothing else.

I was playing with my monopod last night, with the 70-200 VR. With VR ON and a monopod, I was getting reasonably consistent shots at 1/10 - 1/15s. Without VR or some support, I can't imagine making the statement you made above. I think my handheld shooting skills are about average- I'm ok but not a super shooter.

I'm ecstatic if I can get a critically sharp image at 200mm WITH VR.

If I understand you correctly, you are so far above the norm with this that your experience is probably not relevent to this dicussion (in terms of general advice to people we don't know well). There is also the issue of expectations. I don't think the 1/FL rule is intended to provide a shutter speed that equals what can be done on a good tripod, for example, I think it is more likely something like "acceptable" (I remember old posts here arguing all this), and possibly the definition was not meant for the digital age of 100% pixel peeping. The point being that it is not easy to accurately relate to each other since our expectations may vary.

With all that said, having seen your posts over the years, I suspect your expectations are quite high, which adds to my confusion.

I believe in VR, I would never trade my 70-200 for an 80-200, but OTOH, if I were happy with my 180mm 1/60s handheld shots, I might take your position on this too.

Sorry to be so long winded; maybe this will help put this (actually rather silly) issue into some context.

Regards,
Neil

NRothschild said:

someone like yourself makes a statement like "I don't need VR",
they always end up having to justify their opinion,

Click to expand...

I have noticed that as well. I try to be clear that my opinions
are just that, opinions. Take 'em or leave 'em, it ain't going to
hurt my feelings.
You're welcome to challenge me anytime, by the way. There
are half a dozen or so people here who I read no matter what
the topic. You have been on that list for some time.

NRothschild said:

couldn't resist the Ludite thing, but it was meant in pure jest

Click to expand...

I chuckled and you're not far off. I resisted AF and digital for
a long time because I had so much invested in manual lenses
that would not be any fun on a modern body.

NRothschild said:

If I understand you correctly, you are so far above the norm

Click to expand...

I wouldn't go that far. I do think that I shoot differently
that a lot of the folks here and have different expectations.
I really think that anyone of average health and strength
can learn to shoot at slower shutter speeds. 1/FL is a good
rule of thumb for someone who has never shot before. With
a bit of practice, most people can go lower.

NRothschild said:

The point being that it is not easy to accurately relate to
each other since our expectations may vary.

Click to expand...

Excellent point, Neil.
I still shoot as though images cost me money, just like I did
when I was using film. So, before I pull the trigger, I make
sure I'm in focus, properly exposed and like what I see. I
don't press the trigger unless I think I have all three. As such,
I tend to take fewer pictures than most folks here. As a way
to improve my odds, I tend to brace myself against a wall or
a piece of furniture inside or use a monopod outside. Deep
breath, aim lens, squeeze trigger, exhale.
What I have found is that people who shot digital --
especially those who didn't do much film -- take more pictures.
It seems we have all gone from snipers to machine gunners.
My last job was at a newspaper. Having worked with the
28 or so photographers for several years, I know that digital
has greatly increased the quantity of pictures taken but the
percentage of good photos is much lower.

(Details here... http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=14349409 )

Having shot for newspapers before, I may also define
photographic success differently. At the end of a shoot, I
want two or three great images. Not every one needs to
be the definition of technical excellence. I want images
that move me and, hopefully, others.
The best photos ever taken -- Pulitzer prize winning
photos -- wouldn't meet the quality standards of those
on DPReview. I certainly am not putting myself in that
crowd but you can see where the definition of quality
here might be different that what someone who isn't
a photography geek thinks.
Look at the pictures people hang on their 'fridge or
put in frames at the office. Those pictures often would be
the first deleted by many of the people here. Red-eye,
soft, poorly framed. But, they mean something.
That's not to say a family photo can't be both technically
excellent and moving. Uncle Frank as proved that you can
have your cake and eat it, too. But, if I had to choose a
technically great photo or a meaningful photo, I'd choose
the latter in a heartbeat.
There are lots of wonderful macro, dog and bird pictures
on DPReview that are technical superior to anything in the
last 50 years of the Pulitzer Prize. However, none of them
move me in the same way a slightly-soft picture of Mary
Vecchio at Kent State moves me. Or a naked Kim Phuc
Phan circa 1972.
I want more out of my pictures than a critical level of
sharpness and a creamy bokeh.

NRothschild said:

I believe in VR, I would never trade my 70-200 for an 80-200,

Click to expand...

If VR were free, I'd take it and suggest others do the
same. At $700 more than a similar lens without VR, I don't
feel as though it is worth it. I simply could not justify spending
that much more for a feature I have done without for so
many years.

• Does VR work as engineered? Yes.
• Do I shoot move animate objects than inanimate? Yes.
• Do I find that subject movement is far more often

the limiting factor than camera movement? Yes.

• Is $700 too much for a feature I rarely see play a

roll in my shooting? Yes.

Matt

Matt, your response should be tagged to stay on top of the thread list, like they sometimes do with important topics at Nikonians. Along with the link to your other post.

Frequently when I take an image I really like, I think to myself that the technical aspects were meaningless.

http://www.pbase.com/nrothschild/image/48932810

Just an example, not necessarily the best. I like this image. It evokes a mood that may be unique to me because I occasionally go to that park. I like the people looking at the sun, bathed in the sun's reflections. The guy casting his bait. Serenity...

It will never win a pullitzer or even a photo contest but it evokes a positive mood when I look at it, and the sharpness is irrelevent. Maybe I should have used a different ND, whatever, I don't care because I don't need perfection to like the image. The composition may not even be the best, but I'm just a self taught amateur.

I am very guilty of using the shotgun approach, especially with action and wildlife. I too shot a lot of film (all amateur) and paid for it out of my own pocket. Having the ability to "shoot for free", it was like I died and went to heaven. I shot over 60,000 images in two years. I have 650 gb virtually filled to the brim and I'm about to buy another 500gb. I shoot mostly a D2H, and I can't figure out how I would scale that up to 10mb files from my current 4mb (raw) files. I'm a packrat and keep everything unless it is hideously out of focus or mis-expsosed. Not so much a packarat, actually, it is TOO MUCH to review, frame by frame and make that irrevocable decision to hit delete.

I am more persistent than your photogrpahers, though. When I fill my card, I stick another one in

So... slowly I am trying to come around full circle to your way (the old way) of thinking, which I know is the right way to shoot. But, I learned more in two years with digital than I did in 20 years of film, although I think the instant replay has at least as much to do with that than the sheer volumes. I have to find a middle ground because I do like that 8fps switch

Just to say that everything you said makes perfect sense.

--
Regards,
Neil

It boils down to what you photograph. If it is stationary objects, the VR will help. If it is moving subjects in bad light, VR will not help, as it cannot compensate for subject movement, only camera/lens movement. The extra stop is WRT to other options rather than changing from 80-200 to 70-200 VR.

thang said:

Your comment does NOT make any sense in relation to the poster's
question. Both lenses are 2.8. Therefore, the extra stop you
mentioned is irrelevant!

Click to expand...

--
Stay hungry. Stay foolish.

If you have trouble falling asleep, visit my gallery at http://www.pbase.com/dorff/

InitZero said:

InitZero said:

I'm stunned and curious..

Click to expand...

Don't be.
Up until late-2004, I was shooting with manual-focus
lenses. I managed for more than 20 years without autofocus
and autoexposure, let alone vibration reduction.
Some of the new features I have come to love and really
rely on: matrix metering, fill flash I don't have to calculate
myself, autofocus.
VR, however, is not a feature I really use or care about.
It seems like a solution looking for a problem as opposed to
something that really helps me get good images. While I can
appreciate what it is supposed to do and see that it works
in controlled testing, I can't identify in my own photos
where it helps. That doesn't make it a bad feature. It just
means I wouldn't pay double for a 70-200 versus an 80-200
on the basis of VR.

InitZero said:

at what focal lengths, shutterspeeds, and time of day
do you typically shoot with the 70-200vr?

Click to expand...

That's a good question. I don't know. I tried using
Wega2 to come up with an answer but it doesn't allow
you to filter the results by lens. It only allows filtering by
camera. Filtering by lens would be a sweet improvement.
Off the cuff, I'd say 65% of the photos taken with my
70-200 are well-lit and outside (speeds greater than 1/125).
The rest are night or inside (less than 1/125).
With my 180/2.8, 1/60 was about as low as I could go
with a good yield. 1/15 was where hand-holding ceased
to be a viable option. That is similar to what I'm seeing
with the 70-200. The yield is a bit better with the VR at
the low end, of course, but not $700 better than the
80-200 AF-D.
I really feel that a $80 monopod is a better purchase
than $700 for VR.

Click to expand...

Ahhhh.. I think (although I might be off the mark here) I see why VR isn't that important to you. It seems your experience and steady hand is basically doing what VR would do for the average shooter, as I don't think most shooters can get a 'good yield' at 180mm and 1/60th. * You mention that you get about the same yield with the 70-200, and I'd bet my bottom dollar that the average Joe, won't get a good yield holding a somewhat heavy 70-200 zoomed out to 180mm with a shutter speed of 1/60.

I see and appreciate where you're coming from Matt... I also think you have a steadier hand than many.

Thanks for the info & happy shooting!

Cordially

Teila K. Day

NRothschild said:

Matt, your response should be tagged to stay on top

Click to expand...

You're too kind. I'm just shooting from the hip.

NRothschild said:

http://www.pbase.com/nrothschild/image/48932810

Click to expand...

Nice image. I like the casting. I like the bird. I like that
you can see the spire at the top of the building.

NRothschild said:

but it evokes a positive mood when I look at it,

Click to expand...

Bingo! That's a good picture to put on your fireplace
mantel for all the reasons you expressed.
From a photojournalism perspective, you have to go
a step further than 'does this picture move me'. You
have to figure out if the photo resonates with not just
the person taking the photo or those at the event.
You have to ask yourself 'will this picture mean anything
to those who have no understanding of the event'.
Once you can hit that standard on a regular basis, you
have hit pay dirt -- both professionally and spiritually.
So often here, I see pictures that are technically
great but which don't tell a story. I want a story.
I want to know why that bird is important and what
the hike was like to shoot it, just just a 100% blowup
of the leading edge of the wing to show it was sharp.
If I'm not moved by the picture itself, I'm not going to
suddenly find religion over how sharp the wing is.
(No offense to those folks who love the birds. I am
sure to bird people the pictures are more interesting.)

NRothschild said:

I shot over 60,000 images in two years.

Click to expand...

Wow! I think I'm up to 9,500 since August 2004.
I can't imagine trying to catalog 60,000 images. Do
you apply captions or other metadata to the images?

NRothschild said:

I have 650 gb virtually filled to the brim and I'm
about to buy another 500gb.

Click to expand...

True story... Every newspaper story published in my
fairly large regional newspaper from 1982 to 2005 only
took nine gigabytes.

NRothschild said:

I shoot mostly a D2H,

Click to expand...

In retrospect, I wish I had a D2H instead of a D70.
At the time, the D2H seemed like so much more money
and the set up from N8008 and CoolPix 950 was huge.
So, I cheaped-out. I really like the handling of the D2
series better. The D70 is working like a champ, more or
less, and I am at least a year away from a new camera.
By then, I'll be lusting after a full-frame D3 and end up
buying a gently used D200. Or, keeping my still perfectly
functional D70.

NRothschild said:

Just to say that everything you said makes perfect sense.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I wish my wife fell into line as quickly. {grin}

Matt

Nikons MTF at http://www.nikonimaging.com confirms the VR is optically superior at f2.8.
--
Leonard Shepherd

Usually skill in using equipment has more to do with good photography than the equipment itself.

InitZero said:

InitZero said:

Do you apply captions or other metadata to the images?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

No, I just file them in folders by subject and date, and I'm trying to conscientiously build a small folder structure of just "keepers", which are now strewn over the larger folder structure of raw images, in subfolders. Glad you liked it.

I had a couple of Winkflash Photo Albums made, and I am going to make more of my favorite subjects and images. I think that is a great technology to easily and cheaply print, display and store images.

I'm a birder, by the way, and I thnk you hit the nail on the head that it's very difficult get a good bird image in some context that tells a story. I like the technical side of shooting them- it is very challenging at many levels, but it is not, for the most part "art" or "photojournalism".

I do images like this, to show off my lenses:

http://www.pbase.com/nrothschild/image/69594313

But it also documents what these birds look like up close, where few see them. OTOH, how many of these can a shooter shoot?

I like this image because I think it demonstrates the sheer power that these birds can muster to grab a fish (this is my all-time favorite birding image):

http://www.pbase.com/nrothschild/image/62934131

But most people prefer this image because the previous image doesn't show the bird's head, I guess:

http://www.pbase.com/nrothschild/image/62977016

For that shooting, the D2H is obviously a tremendous help. I don't think I could get those shots with a D70, which is what I started with too. For your style, I would think a D70 is perfect, unless you are shooting some sort of action in progress. I understand why you are waiting. I would like a D200 mainly so that the control interface would be more similar to the D2H and I like the separate AF-On and AE/FL buttons, and especially AF-C with focus priority, although the D200 sensor layout is too tight for rule of thirds composition without recomposing, so that may not even work well with the D2H without playing with the AF lock.

(By the way, I migrated from 8008 to D70 too! I still have fond feelings for the 8008, even though it didn't have spot metering, which was my big bug of that era. I never upgraded to the S, but bought a 6006 instead for the spot metering and popup flash. My son left that body and a nice Japanese 50 1.8 in a pub in Europe during his big post-graduation European summer trip)

My first year birding, I had literally dumped a bunch of images here...

http://www.pbase.com/nrothschild/chincoteague

because I had never seen a Snow Geese migration before and I was bowled over, especially seeing the mass flights. You have to excuse the overkill in that gallery, but I was PSYCHED!

I ran into a local artist (with a shop in Chincoteague) painting the scene I was shooting :

http://www.pbase.com/nrothschild/image/35900427

(I thought that was cool shooting her canvas with her scene in the background, thus proving for posterity that her paintings were not made up. Note her almost perfect 50mm film perspective (35mm as shot by D70)

Anyway, I emailed her a link to my gallery, and the only comment she made was directed at this one:

http://www.pbase.com/nrothschild/image/35900425

She told me I should enter that in a photo contest. She thought it was great. I posted the image in a photo forum that will remain unmentioned and my impression was that most people thought it was a bit out of focus

I learned from that experience but it is hard to turn birding into an art. I keep trying, though, because my shooting venues are limited and so are the species large enough or brave enough to be shot. I also try to catch the light at the end of the day... here is one attempt; a number of others in that gallery, which needs some pruning and culling:

http://www.pbase.com/nrothschild/image/62940349

And finally, I recently tried taking a PJ approach to shooting a beach replenishment project. I even tried to add some interesting commentary on some of the images, although it is far from complete:

http://www.pbase.com/nrothschild/beach_replenishment_2006

I thinked I captured the mechanical aspects of the project fairly well (including many images not yet posted), but the hard part is making it interesting to the average Joe; images that pop out and tell the story. That's a Black Art, I guess. You studied PJ in school; I took engineering

For some reason, one of my favorite images in that series is this one:

http://www.pbase.com/nrothschild/image/69249987

Which I didn't like when I shot it (typical stupid backlit shot that never, ever works), and almost passed it by in post, but when I opened it up, I liked it. Cropping isn't quite right, maybe. I need to look for more backlit images; I've become too skilled yet not artful enough to do that

BTW- I did have to shoot a sharp image to catch that steeple

--
Regards,
Neil

NRothschild said:

OTOH, how many of these can a shooter shoot?

Click to expand...

Lots more than I care to look at. {grin}

NRothschild said:

I would think a D70 is perfect, unless you are shooting
some sort of action in progress.

Click to expand...

True. I used to shot a lot more field sports.
I still occasionally shoot one of my father-in-law's Pop
Warner football games but that is about it. He coaches
the under-70 pound group (under age nine?). They are
pretty cute and the parents love the pictures.

NRothschild said:

(By the way, I migrated from 8008 to D70 too!

Click to expand...

I always used to carry the 8008 -- my 'magic' camera --
and an FM-2 as a second body. The 8008 was great. I, too,
almost ended up with the 6006 because it had the flash
built-in but ended up with an SB-24 instead. I probably
made the right choice.
If the D70 would have metered with manual lenses, I
would not have bought new glass. Now that I have had
the pleasure of autofocus and matrix metering, I'm glad
the D70 did not support the old lenses. I never could have
justified upgrading otherwise.

NRothschild said:

http://www.pbase.com/nrothschild/chincoteague

Click to expand...

My wife's family used to live on Chincoteague? Her
mom lived a few houses down and was friends with the
Beebes and even met Marguerite Henry. Small world. We
spent part of our honeymoon on the island. I'm still trying
to find a place in Florida that sells bumbleberry pie. The
pie was the best I ever had.

NRothschild said:

local artist (with a shop in Chincoteague) painting the scene

Click to expand...

Nice image. I'm partial to pictures with people. Generally
speaking, people are more interesting than things.

NRothschild said:

the only comment she made was directed at this one:

Click to expand...

The blur doesn't bother me. I would have liked to see the
birds higher in the air so they didn't blend in with the brown
of the background. I imagine if you had dropped to your knees,
you could have raised them high enough to fix that problem. I
can see how the artist would have loved the image. You'll get
it right next time. {grin}

NRothschild said:

http://www.pbase.com/nrothschild/image/62940349

Click to expand...

Great image. I don't hate all bird pictures.

NRothschild said:

http://www.pbase.com/nrothschild/beach_replenishment_2006

Click to expand...

I'm partial to a wider-angle view of the world. There
were a few pictures in there that are crying out for the
same shot but with a wide angle lens. This is my favorite...

http://www.pbase.com/nrothschild/image/69249981

If you shot the same thing only verticle so that we could
see the driver, that would be perfect. It has the equipment,
splashing water and survey marker. The only thing it is missing
is a human element. The color in the images is awesome.

NRothschild said:

You studied PJ in school; I took engineering

Click to expand...

Don't feel too bad. I dropped out after two or three
semesters before I learned anything.

NRothschild said:

one of my favorite images in that series is this one:

Click to expand...

I see what you're saying. It almost grabs me but not
quite. I'm not sure what I'd do differently. Should he be
more in silhouette? Less? Slightly wider? I'm not sure.
Maybe swing the lens a bit to the right so you can see
more of the sea grass? Not sure.

If you think I'm picking nits with your pictures, you
should hear how brutal I am when it comes to my own.

Matt

Matt,

I appreciate the "nits" and I learned a few things from them. Nit away!

I spent about 4 or 5 days shooting that project, from high above and down below. I had two major issues:

1) They would lay a new pipe to shore and then work a short distance South (great) and then spend most of the time working North (backlit bad yuck)

2) I could rarely get within 100 feet of the action. They were very strict about safety and hired an outside security service and the guards have orders and the supervisor checked the guards, the state inspector checked everything.... the modern world, you know?.... well, no dramatic wide angle images in front of the machines.

I would have given an eye tooth to get into that site and I shmoozed the guards as best I could, but no dice. It really would have been dangerous so I don't blame them except that they even blocked off the dune accesses to the side of the pumping areas for no good reason (except for one day where they locked a dune behind me and left me alone because I had played ball so nicely).

Not sure if I could have gotten the angle of the sand, the blades and the driver, due to the geometry of the front, but the important thing is your point of getting the guy behind the wheel. Lesson learned.



Since I couldn't get the wide angle shots I actually worked out the schedules and timed my visits for the Southward operations and the last pump cycle of the day, as the sun was setting. Even that was difficult because there are 20 story buildings to the East so I had to get my best shots when they were between buildings. Plus, wind most of the time (when it wasn't cloudy or raining) and since I'm not getting paid for this and I only want to buy my lenses once, that was a MAJOR consideration for me.

OK... you want people pictures?



No Neil, I want faces...



Better Neil, but move the sparks..



Ah... that's better....

Too many people? I'll hide him...



These were the people that kept me from getting run over by the dozers with my wide angle lens:





(I did manage to develop a good rapport with them before I shot em)

A local taxpayer, enjoying the new beach and checking out his taxes at work. And demonstrating that I'm not a total long lens heathen



(You're so right, though... I could tell you about how difficult it was to shoot the people hidden in their machines, but my images, on a whole, are people poor. Something to remember. Plus, I'll bet you would have found some interesting wide angles that I overlooked.)

This PJ stuff is very difficult; I'm glad I don't have to do this for a living

Have you noticed that the entire world is structured to look South, into the sun? I tried a new Refuge in Delaware; they have only three accesses to the ponds, all facing South. Another South Delaware refuge is very proud of their new photo blind- facing due South. At least they let me take my dog on the trails.

Haven't had bumbleberry pie; I'll check that out.

(The linked images are new uploads, all at the end of the gallery if you need any exif data. I still have a lot of images shot since I last updated the gallery)

--
Regards,
Neil

I have to say that I think vr is fantastatic - I just got the 18-200 lens and I have been astounded by how low the shutter speed can go and still get a decent picture - I have examples down to 1/2 sec handheld at 100mm that are really impressive (not perfect!). I wouldn't have been able to even think about getting the shots without it.

Or, even this at 400mm at 1/200 sec -



--
Speed is significant and interesting but accuracy is downright fascinating
http://www.pbase.com/pradipta

Thanks again for the thoughtful replys. I guess I am still leaning in the direction of the 80-200. Every review states that it is a stellar preformer, and at half the price of the 70-200 VR, in addition to the rebate, I can afford to take the chance that I wish I would have purchased the 70-200 VR.

The weight of the lens is not much of a concern due to the type of shooting I currently do. If I decide the VR would have been a better purchase, I'm not out that much money, and I can always give it to my daughter who is showing a real interest in photography.

Valid or not, I am always concerned that the more features we add to things, the more things can go wrong. And when you are somewhere without a mechanic to fix it, it's a bummer.

I do believe when I purchase a longer lens, it the VR will become much more valuable to me.

Isn't it great that Nikon gives us a choice!