DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> IS/VR/Anti-shake vs. a Tripod
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 28 of 28, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 01/15/2007 12:27:36 PM · #26
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
I guess I'm in the old fashioned camp. I figure that people got along just fine without IS/VR for years, so it's not something that I'd much bother with, especially considering how much it adds to the price of a lens.

Granted the "why change now" argument has serious flaws, but for the moment I'm not convinced that there is a necessity for IS/VR, at least not for me. I like my tripod, I'm convinced that it forces me to slow down and work a bit harder at getting the shot, and I'm happy with that. Furthermore, the kind of shooting that I enjoy, I can imagine only a few very rare instances where a tripod would not be allowed.


Noise at high ISO, once accepted as normal, is now a major benchmark that can sink a DSLR. Can't deliver a clean image at ISO 800, or a usable one at 1600? The camera is garbage and not worth considering. Could you live without the clean, high ISO images that come out of your 30D?

And it doesn't add to the price of your lens when you have it in-body...
 01/15/2007 01:47:38 PM · #27
Here is my take on the subject.

First, I can̢۪t think of anything that seriously competes with the stability offered by a good tripod and head.

However, it isn̢۪t always convenient to carry a tripod around so it is nice to have a tripod substitute, even if it isn̢۪t as effective as the real thing.

From my personal experience with the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens I would say that the IS does indeed offer a benefit.

The test I ran was to set the lens to 135mm on my XTi body and start off by taking 20 shots of a stationary subject with the camera mounted on a sturdy Gitzo tripod and a shutter speed of 1/60 sec. Essentially all 20 shots were free from blur (when viewed at 50% magnification on my monitor), the same was true at 1/30 sec and 1/15 sec. I decided to go with 50% magnification because that seemed to be a good simulation of what an 8x10 print would look like.

The next test was to take the camera off the tripod and run the 1/60, 1/30 and 1/15 second tests shooting from a standing position being careful to use the best technique I could.

At 1/60 sec a total of 18 out of 20 of the pictures were blur-free at 50% magnification.
At 1/30 sec a total of 11 out of 20 of the pictures were blur-free at 50% magnification.
At 1/15 sec a total of 3 out of 20 pictures were blur-free at 50% magnification.

Finally I repeated the test with the camera off the tripod and with IS turned off.

At 1/60 second I managed 10 out of 20 pictures free from blur
At 1/30 second I managed 4 out of 20 pictures free from blur
At 1/15 second I was unable to produce an acceptable picture at 50% magnification

The 28-135 IS lens is a fairly old model some of the newer models have improved versions of IS, many of which also offer a panning mode so this would be more or less a worst-case scenario. So it is my belief that IS/VR/OSâ€Â¦ do offer a benefit to though who can’t or don’t want to carry a tripod and are willing to give up some consistency.
01/16/2007 07:33:51 PM · #28
Originally posted by Megatherian:
I've seen a lot of talk about people buying into camera systems etc. because of the anti shake technology and on of the highest touted lenses for Nikon is the 18-200 VR. In the case of the Nikon lens the extra money could buy a f/2.8 lens which is 2 stops brighter at 200mm.


Another good point about buying faster glass is that you start rapidly loosing depth of field. Sure, shooting at F2.8 will allow much more light and a faster shutter speed than shooting at F5.6, but DOF will start to suffer. This is even more true with even faster lenses.

This obviously won't be a problem with some shots, but not every shot benefits from a shallow DOF.

VR will allow shooting with a much deeper DOF for a given shutter speed and image sharpness. I'm very pleased with my 18-200 VR so far.

Carrying a tripod is a major PITA that I will aviod at all costs. Shooting that required a tripod would make me leave the camera at home... I'd rather VR and a monopod than no VR and a tripod, and with any kind of light at all VR makes decent shots a reality.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 09:38:26 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 09:38:26 PM EDT.