Rumle
Senior Member
Funny you should mention this, (not making a point) but the first VR product from Nikon was a P&S (700 VR from 1994) film camera, the second was the 80-400 and then the 24-120.
--
l2u/l\Le
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
To hell with VR!!!
- Thread starter Rumle
- Start date
l2u/l\Le
Anybody for wet plates or daguerreotypes?
--
Nothing is more tragic than the murder of a beautiful theory by a gang of brutal facts.
RamR
Forum Enthusiast
....and you bought the D200 because you wanted to improve on that even more? (grin)
--
Ram
Sony DSC-S85/V3
Nikon D80/50mm 1.8/18-135mm/70-300mm VR/
16-85 VR Nikkors
--
Ram
Sony DSC-S85/V3
Nikon D80/50mm 1.8/18-135mm/70-300mm VR/
16-85 VR Nikkors
is techniology replace big portions of multi-years-experiences of good lenses (long and short) handling techniques. Suddenly a rich young kid can buy a long VR/IS/OS lens with a modern camera body and shoot as sharp as you can, if not sharper.
Eric.
Eric.
You still need good hand holding technique even with VR.
Boris
--
Stubborn and ardent clinging to one's opinion is the best
proof of stupidity.
Michel de Montaigne
http://public.fotki.com/borysd/
Boris
--
Stubborn and ardent clinging to one's opinion is the best
proof of stupidity.
Michel de Montaigne
http://public.fotki.com/borysd/
Kaj E
Forum Pro
Yeah, I know it's the photographer - not the camera. ;-)
--
Kind regards
Kaj
http://www.pbase.com/kaj_e
WSSA member
MagicNikon
Veteran Member
Are you mad, man?! Lets roll all the way back to camera obscura days!
--
I've upped my ISO, now up yours.
slappomatt
Forum Enthusiast
I will get whatever lens I choose to and VR has 0 to do with my choice. I wish they would stop selling it personally. as its just one more thing to break and it adds to the price.
--
The past is just the future that already happened.....
--
The past is just the future that already happened.....
mlmusto
Senior Member
ditto. nothing to do w/ poorness of technique.
i have a partially paralyzed left hand from neck injury, weak, atrophied, and shakes uncontrollably -- yet w/ VR i can shoot 1/15 or 1/8 at night (sometimes). can't do that w/ my non VR lenses no matter how much i love them.
sometimes a lack of sensitivity is only matched by ignorance.
--
http://mlmusto.zenfolio.com/
i have a partially paralyzed left hand from neck injury, weak, atrophied, and shakes uncontrollably -- yet w/ VR i can shoot 1/15 or 1/8 at night (sometimes). can't do that w/ my non VR lenses no matter how much i love them.
sometimes a lack of sensitivity is only matched by ignorance.
--
http://mlmusto.zenfolio.com/
auksnapper
Leading Member
This article clearly shows there are benfits to VR whether it be incamera or inlens. Its an interesting reading. Enjoy
http://www.imx.nl/photo/technique/vibration_reduction_compare.html
http://www.imx.nl/photo/technique/vibration_reduction_compare.html
squodge
Well-known member
Indeed. Good hand holding technique might even give you more than a three-stop advantage. We're reading about people shooting images at 1/2 second, even at 55mm, which is about five stops lower than what one might expect from that focal distance.
VR is less important to me than a wide aperture. In fact, aesthetics of a lens is more important to me, e.g the bokeh produced by the Nikkor 85mm f/1.4.
Still, VR is with us - we might as well use it! If technology wasn't embraced, we'd all still be walking in bare feet to go to shops that might never have been invented.
~ squodge ~
That's cheating... First, you're showing the result on a thumbnail. I have plenty of photos that are soft at 100% due to shacking but that look fine on the web...
Also, you're using a Coolpix. I used to get similar results with my Coolpix 990 shooting from the hip (swivel design rules). Most people with a Leica can manage this too. The lack of mirror is a huge advantage for low speed photos. But you don't hold a compact camera the same way you hold a 1.5kg DSLR. Especially when that compact has a swivel body or a LCD that let you use it from much more stable positions, like the hip or chest. It's kind of using your DSLR with a chest strap...
Yeah, and so?
One century ago, people were happy with exposure times that went for minutes. Does this mean we don't need anything past ISO 6?
Back in the late 80's, I was very happy to shoot with a TMax 3200, because that was all that were available for available light shooting in low light condition. Back then, I found the results acceptable. I have scanned these old negatives recently and just realised how awful they were...
We did not need some things in the past, because we had much lower expectations. We did not mind having grain in a ISO 400 photo. Now, we mind having any noise at 800 ISO and above.
Likewise, we were not "required" to do some stuff, because it was acknowledged that it was impossible to do them. For instance, it was acceptable to have either soft theater photos, grainy ones or black and white ones. Now, we are expected to have low noise, sharpness and color accuracy in them.
Now, I can expect to come to a scene that is unreasonnably dark (as in 3200 ISO, f1.8, 1/15s) and come home with some acceptable photos. If I had had VR on top of f1.4, I could have reduced the ISO and/or increased the sharpness.
Not really... VR is not an equaliser, it is an enhancer. This has been shown by some reviews, like in Chasseur d'Image. Photographers with a good handholding technic do gain on top of that when using VR.
Besides, handholding technic does not work in some conditions. For instance, try to cover a violent demonstration! Avoid some molotov cocktails, fight your way through a compact mob, run your hundred yards to dodge the police and then take your photo and see how well your handholding technic has survived the exercising...
Likewise, handholding technic tends to degrade after several hours of holding several pounds of camera and lens. It also degrades when things do hectic - you need time to compose your breath, to slow your heartrate. VR just need a second to do that.
Exacty. I know the magazine Chasseur d'Image always evaluate the VR lenses using two different users. They get very different results. Usually, you have one gaining around 2 stops, and the other 4 stops or more. The journalist with the 4 stops gain is also the one that is able to handheld at the slowest speed without VR.
So, VR is not an equalizer. While everyone seems to benefit from it, some do more than others. Good handholding technique and VR do work together. Or maybe you have to develop a handholding technique that is specific to VR to gain beyond what you're supposed to gain.
I would like both.
Like a 50mm f1.4 AF-S VR lens. Currently, I have a 50mm f1.8, and its a draw between using it and the 18-200 VR as far as low light use is concerned. So, I use the 50mm when I need to freeze action or when I need narrow DoF, and the 18-200 when I need flexibility or deeper DoF. If I had VR on the 50mm too, that would be a no brainer and the 18-200 would say in the backpack when I'm doing low light stuff...
john Clinch
Senior Member
Well I think VR is a good thing, its not like it has a downside
It replaces a tripod over a limited shutter spped range
Its strange how people moan about VR not freezing action but I've never read that about a tripod
The fast lens verses VR debate has no end. Some like blurred back grounds some like greater depth of field at a lower shutter speed. You pays your money and takes your choice.
--
http://www.photo.net/photos/JohnClinch
http://www.flickr.com/photos/john_clinch/
The 6MP DSLR first appeared in 2002. They're still selling in 2008. Thats a good run.
It replaces a tripod over a limited shutter spped range
Its strange how people moan about VR not freezing action but I've never read that about a tripod
The fast lens verses VR debate has no end. Some like blurred back grounds some like greater depth of field at a lower shutter speed. You pays your money and takes your choice.
--
http://www.photo.net/photos/JohnClinch
http://www.flickr.com/photos/john_clinch/
The 6MP DSLR first appeared in 2002. They're still selling in 2008. Thats a good run.
Ok, let's put it this way. If some buyers of VR lenses want to overrate their VR lens, are they not entitled to do so? It's their money, their investment and their opinion; you seem to get worked up too easily. Disagree with them is one thing, but jumping on your high horse is another. Just chill out, and enjoy your gear.
sir oliver
Well-known member
Sort of funny that many of todays "picture makers" want or need cameras and lenses.
We never had any such thing with our old manual brushes, paints and canvases in the 1400-s, 1500-s and 1600-s.
Leonardo, Michelangelo & Tizian
give the masses what they want .......
VR in body will come as Sony starts gaining market share .... wait and watch.
Never forget technology does not win, marketing does! ( does any one still own a superior betamax?)
Why on earth such a violent reaction. For what my 18-200VR does, I love it. Does it replace my 28-57 2.8 Tammy for portraits .... NO, Does it replace my Sigma 120-300 2.8 + TC for birding .... NO,
To me, the much more interesting issue is why have I not got around to trading in my antique 80-200 push pull 2.8 ..... The answer is simple .... for me it works. I have paid the price to get the images I want. These are a bit high ISO/ too low a shutter speed, and as they are for my enjoyment on the web, just not worth an extra $1200 to "fix" When I show them to my friends, they still go wow, even though the are not technically good images. The are quite nice reltaive to the P&S crowd. When I show them to my photographer buddies, the go not critically sharp!
Dave
VR in body will come as Sony starts gaining market share .... wait and watch.
Never forget technology does not win, marketing does! ( does any one still own a superior betamax?)
Why on earth such a violent reaction. For what my 18-200VR does, I love it. Does it replace my 28-57 2.8 Tammy for portraits .... NO, Does it replace my Sigma 120-300 2.8 + TC for birding .... NO,
To me, the much more interesting issue is why have I not got around to trading in my antique 80-200 push pull 2.8 ..... The answer is simple .... for me it works. I have paid the price to get the images I want. These are a bit high ISO/ too low a shutter speed, and as they are for my enjoyment on the web, just not worth an extra $1200 to "fix" When I show them to my friends, they still go wow, even though the are not technically good images. The are quite nice reltaive to the P&S crowd. When I show them to my photographer buddies, the go not critically sharp!
Dave
When you are in museums and you are not allowed to use flash or a tripod, a VR lens is the best option you can have.
Depending on what you shoot, VR can be far better than a F2.8 (or even 1.4) lens. For portraits, low-light events like a concert, a fast lens is beneficial. For landscape or vacation shots you need more depth of field. F2.8 will rarely be the right f-stop for a landscape picture. You will more likely be at F8-11 and the 16-85 has an advangage over the 17-55 in this area.
Rich H
Rich H
Similar threads
- User review
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum