Hey!!...I'm still waiting for you to get the tripod...I'm not a robot you know !.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?"
--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
Please read what you just wrote then read the OP's subject line.
Much better than had he not had a VR lens.
Never his point
Again, not really relevant here
Not the shots per say, but what VR is able to accomplish vs had it not been available. Perhaps if he had shown the same shot with VR "off" also, you might see what many here see as his observation.
It is relevant though. It would be like me posting photos taken of me holding a camera and spinning on the spot at 1/30 shutter speed.
I would think, as the OP pointed out, it doesn't mean you shouldn't... be afraid to use it.
But are they good enough? I don't think they are. I ike to have VR but it has not saved these shots.
His point is that VR has helped him get decent shots in poor light. I disagree.
It is not relevent whether the shots are good enough to keep??
Has VR enabled him to accomplish shots that he should be happy with? Personally I don't think it has in this case. The fact that they would be worse without VR is not relevent. By the time they hit my trash bin I don't care if they are poor or very very poor.
--
Looking at the rest of his work....that was never his intent he since he is obviously more than capable.
No, his point was that VR is amazing.
No, not in a simple example. "keep" is in the eye of the keeper
You simply misunderstand the point of the post.....very common here, but irrelevant to the point he well made. See, these are not keepers but make the same point
Okay, well lets look at it another way. Nikon already proved VR works when they designed it. We don't need picture after picture of it used poorly when frankly better solutions are available (tripod) or worse to shoot a test chart.Looking at the rest of his work....that was never his intent he since he is obviously more than capable.
No, his point was that VR is amazing.
No, not in a simple example. "keep" is in the eye of the keeper
You simply misunderstand the point of the post.....very common here, but irrelevant to the point he well made. See, these are not keepers but make the same point
