A good example showing IS or VR is not a "must" for a talent photographer!
http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1026574
http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1026574
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
No IS No VR
- Thread starter KC Wong
- Start date
J
jeff-c
Guest
Mind if you tell us more about technique of keeping such long lens steady?
Hi Jeff,
I'm sorry to tell you that the picture is not taken by me (I wish it was)....just surfing the web site and would like to share with you all.
I'm sorry to tell you that the picture is not taken by me (I wish it was)....just surfing the web site and would like to share with you all.
AdWiser88638
Senior Member
Let's see:
quote-----
With good long lens tech and a good tripod you too can get sharp photos @ 1/15 of a second. (if your subject does not move !)
---------------unquote
As far as I know VR or IS is for the same kind of shots without tripod.
What is your point? A quality tripod (carbon fiber) with a good head equals in price the extra you pay for a VR (IS) lens.
The picture is great, the argument can't hold water.
--
regards,
AdWiser
quote-----
With good long lens tech and a good tripod you too can get sharp photos @ 1/15 of a second. (if your subject does not move !)
---------------unquote
As far as I know VR or IS is for the same kind of shots without tripod.
What is your point? A quality tripod (carbon fiber) with a good head equals in price the extra you pay for a VR (IS) lens.
The picture is great, the argument can't hold water.
--
regards,
AdWiser
Hubert Tse
Forum Enthusiast
If you use tripod and shutter cable, you do not need IS or VR.
If your target is moving even at modest speed, neither IS nor VR can help.
Try to shoot again at 1/6 sec without IS/VR/tripod and see what you would get.
Regards,
K. Tse
If your target is moving even at modest speed, neither IS nor VR can help.
Try to shoot again at 1/6 sec without IS/VR/tripod and see what you would get.
Regards,
K. Tse
Jonathan F.
Senior Member
I think IS is essential to sports, photojournalism, and the ocassional celebrity stake outs! 
------------------------------
I'm Canadian. I miss ketchup chips.
inhousephoto inc. digital • photography • media
http://www.inhousephoto.com
--
------------------------------
I'm Canadian. I miss ketchup chips.
inhousephoto inc. digital • photography • media
http://www.inhousephoto.com
Why would you want/use VR for sports? I shoot a lot of soccer and my shutter speed never drops below 1/1000. So VR isn't very useful, since at those shutte speeds, camera shake isn't a problem. Maybe it depends on what sports you are shooting, from how far away, and in what lighting conditions. I might be lucky that most of my stuff is in the middle of the day outside.I think IS is essential to sports, photojournalism, and the
ocassional celebrity stake outs!
@ 1/15 sec and 1200mm, a tripod will beat VR anytime ...
I understand your point but a tripod is even more stable than VR or IS. Just a hassle to carry around.
Yves P.
(some pictures I like here
http://www.pbase.com/yp1/images01
http://www.pbase.com/yves_pinsono23
I understand your point but a tripod is even more stable than VR or IS. Just a hassle to carry around.
--
Yves P.
(some pictures I like here
http://www.pbase.com/yp1/images01
http://www.pbase.com/yves_pinsono23
Peter Phan
Senior Member
The same argument was used against autofocus in the 80's. Canon was coming out with USM autofocus telephotos, which was made possible due to the fact that Canon's EOS system used focus motors (particularly UltraSonic Motors) located in the lens rather than the camera body. While Nikon autofocus bodies could drive shorter lenses with the camera's body-located motor, Nikon telephotos remained manual focus. And there used to be heated arguments back then that autofocus was not a "must" for a talented photographer. Talented photographers even made claims of their phenomenal manual focus tracking capabilities. Sure, I guess you can make that argument as an exercise in machismo, but today those arguments just seem silly. Heck, even back then, focus tracking capabilities with autofocus were far more accurate, consistent, reliable, and more easily acquirable with an autofocus lens for most photographers than doing it manually could ever be. Similar benefits can be said of IS/VR today.
Don't agree with you're assumption. Most of my long lenses are MF AIS lenses, which do not hunt! Even the AF long lenses I own I use in the MF mode...no hunting! Has nothing to do with machismo. You use what works best to get the shot. Same goes with IS...nothing perfect their either (shutter lag times increase)... but still a good tool. But not a "must" by far.
Boris
http://public.fotki.com/borysd/
Boris
http://public.fotki.com/borysd/
I would not agree with you. IMHO, IS and VR has greatest advantage on lens with 1.5 kg (or below) i.e. 70-200, 80-400/100-400 or 24-120/28-135 in which hand held situation is possible. Don't get me wrong, you can see ALL pros in sport arena using their tele must use a monopod!
What I really want to point out is IS or VR is not a "must" for big tele, no matter it is C or N.
What I really want to point out is IS or VR is not a "must" for big tele, no matter it is C or N.
Peter Phan
Senior Member
Yes, I agree. IS/VR is not a must. It's merely a tool that can provide certain benefits if you use it in the right situations. But then, again, the same thing that can be said of a lot of features that we have today. And yes, much depends on the talent of the photographer. A talented photographer can do extremely well with very rudimentary equipment.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum