| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/13/2007 04:59:14 PM · #1 |
How useful is VR / IS / Anti-shake really? To me it seems like one of those features that looks good on paper but in reality doesn't serve a tremendous amount of purpose?
If you're shooting moving objects you'll get motion blur from the subjects. Sure you may be trying to get motion blur on purpose - but how often do you take those shots really? So often that you would be burdened just using a tripod?
If you're taking a picture of static objects then why shoot it handheld at all? The best in camera / lens vibration reduction system out there can't compete with a rock solid tripod.
It just seems like another thing on the camera (or lens) that can break.
What are your thoughts on it? |
|
|
|
01/13/2007 05:00:05 PM · #2 |
Tripod>IS/VR>nothing
Message edited by author 2007-01-13 22:14:48. |
|
|
|
01/13/2007 05:07:04 PM · #3 |
| IS/VR is good in situations where 1) tripods aren't allowed or 2) tripods are not practical. |
|
|
|
01/13/2007 05:09:13 PM · #4 |
| Well there are places where tripods are not allowed, sometimes it is not possible to carry tripods, and even on a tripod, there are vibrations caused due to movement, camera mechanics, wind. |
|
|
|
01/13/2007 05:09:15 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
If you're taking a picture of static objects then why shoot it handheld at all? The best in camera / lens vibration reduction system out there can't compete with a rock solid tripod. |
I agree BUT sometime you just don't want to carry a tripod - think of travel and alike where a lot of images are of landmarks & such but it's not reasonable to carry a tripod. I have a little travel pod but it's not that convient and remember that some of us still hate tripods :-)
|
|
|
|
01/13/2007 05:09:17 PM · #6 |
I have had lenses that claimed to have IS, didn't appear to make much difference. I have invested in this new Pentax, not for features, but for fun. Claims are between 2.5 and 3 stops. When I get it, I will try it out. Reviews state 2.5 stops??
I will still use a tripod or monopod when I think I need it.
Let's wait and see? |
|
|
|
01/13/2007 05:21:25 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by ignite:
Well there are places where tripods are not allowed, sometimes it is not possible to carry tripods, and even on a tripod, there are vibrations caused due to movement, camera mechanics, wind. |
I'm not a "well traveled" sort of person, so I honestly don't know, but are there lots of places where you can't use a tripod? I personally haven't come across any.
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.
Message edited by author 2007-01-13 17:22:09. |
|
|
|
01/13/2007 05:29:16 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
Originally posted by ignite:
Well there are places where tripods are not allowed, sometimes it is not possible to carry tripods, and even on a tripod, there are vibrations caused due to movement, camera mechanics, wind. |
I'm not a "well traveled" sort of person, so I honestly don't know, but are there lots of places where you can't use a tripod? I personally haven't come across any.
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. |
It depends on your usage. If you think anti-shake is more important to your work than a fast lens, you buy that. Usually museums etc don't allow tripods, sometimes you can't carry a tripod on a plane, depends. If they are making such lenses and people are buying them even for a higher price, there must be good reason for it.
Message edited by author 2007-01-13 17:31:14. |
|
|
|
01/13/2007 05:42:18 PM · #9 |
Try shooting candids with a long lens and a tripod. You will only get the ones who are staying in one place long enough for you to setup.
I've taken many candids thanks to my 70-300 DO IS. If the light were very bright, I could us a high shutter speed, but it never seems to be!
Second, if your subject is reasonably stationary while shooting, you can use IS to let you go down a couple of speeds from normal, and help get sufficient DOF for the shot.
Walking around with family and shooting on a hike, or in another city, it's rare I would carry a tripod. By the time I setup and took the shot I wanted, my family would be long gone. Yet, those shots can benefit from IS. When the light is "magical", there's often not enough for a good shutter speed.
When I am by myself shooting landscapes, I use a tripod as much as possible. But I shoot other things while walking that are of interest: no tripod.
In short, when the light is "nice", there's never enough of it as far as my camera's have always been concerned. When ISO 3200 becomes as good as ISO 100, I probably won't need IS/VR anymore.
Lastly, some of us don't have very steady hands. My hand has a visible shake. I'm still pretty decent holding the camera, but with IS I can handhold a camera to 1/8 of a second and get decent results.
So I am one of those who wants IS on all their lenses. I am going to ensure I get as much IS functionality as I can on my next camera--probably why I'll end up buying the Pentax K10D. If you stick to VR/IS for Canon and Nikon, you are more limited in your lens choices, and they can be pretty expensive. With built in IS, I can get IS benefits AND have a lens that's 2.8, 1.8 or even 1.4.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2007 05:53:47 PM · #10 |
Depends on what you shoot.
Sports where the subject is moving, then IS means little.
Landscapes or macro, where a tripod is used (or should be), then IS means little.
Shooting a wedding in less than optimum light, handheld, perhaps with a 70-200 2.8 at 2.8 and ISO 400 or 800 and the best you get is 1/60 or 1/100 shutter? Then IS is priceless.
I was skeptical of it's value on wide(r) angle lenses until I got to try the canon 17-55 2.8 IS. I can handhold at 50mm and 1/5 second and get a sharp shot. Wow. I'm still having trouble convincing myself that lens is worth $600 more than a 3rd party non-IS lens though.
I just need to find another bag of money.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2007 06:08:23 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Depends on what you shoot.
Sports where the subject is moving, then IS means little.
|
...except for assistance in panning, maybe.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2007 06:10:38 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
I'm not a "well traveled" sort of person, so I honestly don't know, but are there lots of places where you can't use a tripod? I personally haven't come across any.
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. |
As mentioned above, many museums won't allow tripods, simply due to the fact that they don't want someone clogging up the aisles.
With respect to faster lenses, these, obviously, come at the expense of DOF. If one wants more in focus, then one has to stop down and most of the advantage is lost.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2007 06:15:43 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
How useful is VR / IS / Anti-shake really? To me it seems like one of those features that looks good on paper but in reality doesn't serve a tremendous amount of purpose?
If you're shooting moving objects you'll get motion blur from the subjects. Sure you may be trying to get motion blur on purpose - but how often do you take those shots really? So often that you would be burdened just using a tripod?
If you're taking a picture of static objects then why shoot it handheld at all? The best in camera / lens vibration reduction system out there can't compete with a rock solid tripod.
It just seems like another thing on the camera (or lens) that can break.
What are your thoughts on it? |
I picked up a 70-300 VR just after Christmas. It is my first VR lens, and really I haven't even explored all of it's capabilities yet. This is not a fast lens, so at 300mm, f/5.6, I need all the help I can get. Yes, for fast moving subjects, there's only so far I can go with the shutter speed, but it sure gives you a lot more options. How useful it is depends on what you're shooting, and at what focal length (I tend to think VR is more useful at longer focal lengths where your shutter speed required to eliminate the effects of vibration exceeds the shutter speed required to stop motion). I don't always want to carry a tripod, and in plenty of instances taking the time to set up on a tripod is the difference between getting the shot and not. It doesn't replace a tripod, but it's another useful tool to add to the collection.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2007 06:21:55 PM · #14 |
I HATE tripods :-) To me, they are inconvenient, slow me down, and hamper creativity in PoV. I could deal with IS, but if it boiled down to choosing between IS and a faster lens I'd go with the faster lens.
BTW, how many journalist have ya ever seen carry a tripod? Or wedding photographers? Ditto for the majority of fashion photogs.
They do have their places: landscapes, macros...Wal-mart portrait studios
|
|
|
|
01/13/2007 06:56:22 PM · #15 |
I dont like to use a tripod either. except for long exposures.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2007 08:38:31 PM · #16 |
The 18-200 VR is dynamite
1/60 @ 200mm
It's a snapshot, of course - but I'm not about to set up shop for serious lunar photography any time soon.
These pictures(excuse the local language) are taken at night, of an outdoor stage that was not very well lit. I was ducking and weaving around parents and such that were thronging the spectacle of their little angels in the limelight. Absolutely no chance of setting up anything like a tripod. It was important to get a representative shot of each of the nine acts that represented the decades in which the school has been up and running.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2007 08:44:26 PM · #17 |
I think it is definitely a great convenience and zero setup, until I invent a more quickly adjustable/setup mechanism for the standard clumsy tripod.
I took 1200-1500 shots each day on a bus tour last September in upper Michigan. Locations included upper outdoor deck on the Jet-Express Ferry Boat to Mackinaw Island (until it got too, windy/stormy), then three horses pulling 30 people all day horse-cart tour (backpack and long lens in hand), Soo Locks boat tour, and by train to the Canadian Agawa Canyon (up 300 steps to the lookout deck. I used my 70-200 VR handheld mainly for entire days of shooting.
I've photographed jet-skis on Lake Erie from the shores on a sunny day. I was even able to zoom in the raw capture and read their license sticker. Great for candid and outdoor sports. I got some pretty good shot of the USAF Blue Angels at our annual air show.
I will post some of these in my portfolio, soon.
If you are riding/touring on any type of Public/Private Transportation such as a Train, Boat, Double Decker Bus, Horse Carriage, or in a moving vehicle, it has it's benefits.
|
|
|
|
01/14/2007 12:03:50 AM · #18 |
Took my K10D to the Vancouver aquarium today, and with no fast glass it proved to be a real test of the SR and high ISO performance of my camera.
Does Shake Reduction work?
1/13 sec @ 105mm (158 equiv)
For the record, I don't have steady hands.
Oh, and heres some examples from the dpreview forums. 1/2 sec. Yeah.
Message edited by author 2007-01-14 02:06:55.
|
|
|
|
01/14/2007 04:55:52 AM · #19 |
I too was sceptical about Shake reduction (& that is not a reason why a bought an A100),
But, If I can Semi hand hold (I had the lense barrel resting on the railing of a hotel balcony) for 3 seconds, with the following result, its got to be a bonus (image has been resized only. These were taken to test the capabilities of Anti Shake only):
//i28.photobucket.com/albums/c204/hoffy73/DSC00108_RESIZE.jpg
Would I buy another camera/lens for its anti shake capablities? Yep!!
Message edited by Manic - keep images under 500px/30kb or post links/thumbs. |
|
|
|
01/15/2007 03:44:18 AM · #20 |
I think having a good tripod is a important, but I've found anti-shake useful when trying to do low-light candids (where a tripod is impractical) or when I've had to travel light and couldn't take a tripod. Konica-Minolta's claims of 2-3 stop improvement has been borne out by my experience.
In fact, there could even be occasions where anti-shake is useful WITH a tripod. I only discovered afterwards that my entry in the "30 seconds or more" challenge was a little soft - my Manfrotto tripod was rock-solid, but the elevated roadway it was standing on was vibrating due to the cars driving on it.
Message edited by author 2007-01-15 03:44:50. |
|
|
|
01/15/2007 05:42:34 AM · #21 |
Taken on the capitol grounds, where tripods are not allowed. Wouldn't have been possible (or at least very difficult) without VR.
1/13 ISO 800 f/2.8 70mm
|
|
|
|
01/15/2007 09:16:02 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Depends on what you shoot.
Sports where the subject is moving, then IS means little.
|
For motion panning in a certain direction with slow shutterspeeds (1/160s with a 200mm lens on a 1.5x crop body for example) IS will help a lot IMHO. The modern IS and VR systems recognize in which direction you are panning and will compensate for any other movement except the panning direction. Also very helpful to stabilize the viewfinder so that you can follow your target easier.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2007 09:33:13 AM · #23 |
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.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2007 10:42:44 AM · #24 |
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 ...
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 ... |
You're right. Similarly, people got along just fine without auto-focus, auto-exposure, etc. (Please don't imagine a sarcastic tone, because I'm serious!) None of these things are actually necessary - and any good photographer would still be able to take good photographs without any of them. But there can be times where one or more might make certain shots easier (hard to easy, or infeasible to feasible).
I think it's one of those cases where every single opinion expressed in the thread is correct.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2007 11:15:35 AM · #25 |
By stabilizing the image you see in the view finder, it helps you compose the shot a lot better than without IS/VR, especially on a long lens handheld. Your image might be sharp without IS but your composition might be off because the image in your viewfinder is moving around so much that it's hit and miss. There are many many situations where tripods are not practical or allowed.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 08:48:53 PM EDT.
