Jump to content


Photo

Vr Or Is Future Implications...?


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 geedee

geedee

    Dedicated SDP Member

  • Stunners
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,845 posts
  • Lenses:Nikon 16-35 VR f4 50mm f1.4 70-200 VR II f2.8 x2 converter
    18-70 f3.5-4.5DX (kit for D70s)
    Tamron 150-600 f5-6.3
    Cannon 50mm f1.8
  • Flashes:Nikon SB 910
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Cannon AE1
    Nikon D70S D800

Posted 26 February 2017 - 05:46 AM

Having watched Tony`s thinking on possible issues related to Nikons camera/lens production and where it might have been improved, it seems that there may well be room for improvement to an extent that some (like me) might think disappointing in that more recent output may present issues..?

 

The new Nikkor 24-70 f2.8 which as a lens seems not to be an obvious improvement other than that it includes VR with the disadvantage of more weight and a larger diameter front element...when compared to the 77mm of it`s predecessor which coincidentally(or not) is the same diameter as 70-200mm f2.8. The difference in cost of the old vs new 24-70 seems considerable and perhaps not easy to justify in terms of actual cost benefit analysis...? 

 

What`s all this got to do with VR/IS ...?  I wonder at the value of building in anti vibration technology to the sensor as opposed to the lens and how that might evolve... If sensor stabilisation was or became the equivalent or better than in lens stabilisation, then what value lenses like the new Nikkor 24-70 when compared with it`s predecessor....Hmm..?

 

In the same vein I ever look at the 14-24 f2.8 Nikkor and given the obvious move to engineer VR into lenses these days and my lack of skill to hold a camera really steady a VR option in that iconic lens would increase my temptation to own it... Though if any new Nikon body included sensor stabilisation, then the 14-24 as is, would perhaps be more useable in my hands...Hmm..?

 

Just thinking in type and claiming NO real understanding of VR or IS technology.  



#2 John W

John W

    Master Photographer

  • Stunners
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,439 posts
  • LocationMaryland - Eastern Shore
  • Lenses:Nikon 200-500 5.6
    Nikon 16-80 2.8-4
    Nikon 500mm f4E FL
    Nikon 50mm f1.8
    Nikon 1.4III extender
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Nikon D500
    Vangurad Actus Plus 283AT Tripod
    Feisol CT-3371 Rapid tripod
    Induro Git 404L series tripod
    Gitzo GM 4552L Monopod
    Really Right Stuff BH-55 Ball Head
    Wimberley WH-200
    Mongoose 3.6 Gimbal
    Induro GHB - 1 Gimbal

Posted 26 February 2017 - 11:01 PM

Inteersting question but no answer here.

 

My question about Vr relates to long lens and birds in flight. On or off? Obviously one is trying to keep the camera as steady as possible but even on a tripod with a gimbal head there is movement & some amount of shake. Any harm in leaving VR on when using a tripod / gimbal.



#3 geedee

geedee

    Dedicated SDP Member

  • Stunners
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,845 posts
  • Lenses:Nikon 16-35 VR f4 50mm f1.4 70-200 VR II f2.8 x2 converter
    18-70 f3.5-4.5DX (kit for D70s)
    Tamron 150-600 f5-6.3
    Cannon 50mm f1.8
  • Flashes:Nikon SB 910
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Cannon AE1
    Nikon D70S D800

Posted 27 February 2017 - 04:01 AM

John, glad you found interest in my thinking, I suspect it will be a wait and see game though if sensor stabilisation incorporation in high end Nikons comes to pass it might be that the pre VR lenses may well be sought after, given the new 24-70 seems not to be enough of an improvement in any area other than VR to justify it`s extra cost and that it will require larger filters than the "usual" 77mm to be purchased/carried along with it`s increased weight, and with some seemingly reporting little to no optical improvement... Hmm..?

 

Re your question on VR/tripod use, from a very poor memory I am pretty sure that at least one if not more long VR equipped Nikkors have a VR switch setting for tripod..? I also think in the past I have read that shake while panning is partly that which VR was designed to counteract...?



#4 JestePhotography

JestePhotography

    Master Photographer

  • Stunners
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,654 posts
  • LocationMosquitoville(lol), Alberta
  • Lenses:Nikon 400mm f2.8E FL ED VR
    Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 DG OS HSM sport
    Nikon 105mm f2.8 AF-S VR IF ED
    Nikon 1.4, 1.7 and 2x TC
    Tripod: Manfrotto 055CXPRO3
    Gimbal Head: Jobu Designs BWG-HD3 Heavy Duty MKlll
  • Flashes:Yuongnuo 560lll
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Nikon D7000, Nikon D4S

Posted 28 February 2017 - 03:15 PM

There is a very good reason to leave it on. The herkyjerky factor. In sport mode my birds in viewfinder are much settled down when I leave VR sport on. With VR off even with good technique the bird jumps around in the frame a lot more, and it does on VR normal as well.

#5 John W

John W

    Master Photographer

  • Stunners
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,439 posts
  • LocationMaryland - Eastern Shore
  • Lenses:Nikon 200-500 5.6
    Nikon 16-80 2.8-4
    Nikon 500mm f4E FL
    Nikon 50mm f1.8
    Nikon 1.4III extender
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Nikon D500
    Vangurad Actus Plus 283AT Tripod
    Feisol CT-3371 Rapid tripod
    Induro Git 404L series tripod
    Gitzo GM 4552L Monopod
    Really Right Stuff BH-55 Ball Head
    Wimberley WH-200
    Mongoose 3.6 Gimbal
    Induro GHB - 1 Gimbal

Posted 01 March 2017 - 02:38 PM

I just found this article which is the most extensive I have seen and very interesting.. To sum up he suggests not to use VR  on a long lens above 1/500. http://www.dslrbodie...t-nikon-vr.html



#6 geedee

geedee

    Dedicated SDP Member

  • Stunners
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,845 posts
  • Lenses:Nikon 16-35 VR f4 50mm f1.4 70-200 VR II f2.8 x2 converter
    18-70 f3.5-4.5DX (kit for D70s)
    Tamron 150-600 f5-6.3
    Cannon 50mm f1.8
  • Flashes:Nikon SB 910
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Cannon AE1
    Nikon D70S D800

Posted 02 March 2017 - 03:31 AM

John, seems there are many thoughts on the benefits or otherwise of VR and when or not it should be used, I suspect given the image is the end product then it may be reasonable to judge from one`s own work...?

 

Logic, flawed or otherwise, would seem to agree that VR may have less or indeed no advantage above certain shutter speeds..? Seems there is enough theorising going on out there to start a war... if one was so inclined..(-:  

 

 Having read a little bit I suspect my original premise is flawed relative to older non-VR Nikkors becoming more valued in time if Nikon adopted image stabilisation in -camera.... Given how much time and effort they have put into in-lens VR technologies, logic would seem t determine Nikon are unlikely to adopt in-camera stabilisation in the near future.... ?



#7 elcab18

elcab18

    Master Photographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,569 posts
  • LocationSo Cal
  • Lenses:Nikon 12-24
    Nikon 16-35
    Nikon 50
    Nikon 24-85
    Nikon 70-200
    Nikon 105 micro
    Nikon 200-500 f 5.6
  • Flashes:Yongnuo YN 568 EX
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Nikon D610
    Nikon D500

Posted 02 March 2017 - 06:41 PM

I've thought about this since your post geedee...my thought is that it provides a benefit in some situations...enough to leave it in place for now.  My guess is that many features in today's gear is "Pro" inspired and therefore proven and worthy. I also think that the folks it would most benefit probably don't use it...humm.



#8 geedee

geedee

    Dedicated SDP Member

  • Stunners
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,845 posts
  • Lenses:Nikon 16-35 VR f4 50mm f1.4 70-200 VR II f2.8 x2 converter
    18-70 f3.5-4.5DX (kit for D70s)
    Tamron 150-600 f5-6.3
    Cannon 50mm f1.8
  • Flashes:Nikon SB 910
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Cannon AE1
    Nikon D70S D800

Posted 03 March 2017 - 04:24 AM

Doug, thanks for taking time to contemplate aspects of the subject I raised even though I did so on very basic terms. Seems the more folk who promote their "expertise" then the more chance that discussion gives way to argument...?

 

I think professionals may well be those with the most to gain from VR and perhaps news photographers more than most given the huge variety of scenes that are presented momentarily which have fortunately been captured and in time have become photographic icons.

 

It seems that the increasing ability to capture the most detailed images possible by whatever means possible in lower light will ever be a worthy goal be it by VR, higher ISO capability or whatever..... Though the fewer moving parts and the least power used in the process would also seem to have the greater advantage..?

 

Seems to me that capturing really good images has never been easier.... VR or IS in cell phones...!!! 

 

Just thinking in type and claiming ZERO expertise in anything.



#9 cuda

cuda

    Esteemed Community Contributor

  • Stunners
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,653 posts
  • LocationPlainfield,IL
  • Lenses:Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS Series II
    Canon 11-24 f4.0 L
    Canon 16-35 f2.8 L Series II
    Canon 50 f1.4
    Canon 24-70 f2.8 L Series II
    Canon 100-400 f4.5/5.6 L Series II
    Canon 1.4 T/C Series III
    Canon 2X T/C Series III
    Canon 100mm f2.8 L Macro
    Canon 17mm f4.0 L Tilt and Shift
  • Flashes:Canon 600 EX-RT x4
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Canon 5DSR
    Canon 5D Mark III
    Canon 1DX Mark II

Posted 10 March 2017 - 11:38 AM

 Everyone who hand holds their equipment benefits with IS / VR. Especially in lower light conditions or with a slow shutter speed. Take some sample images with it off keep dropping the shutter speed till it blurs, then turn it on and try the same test you should get at least 2 stops better performance. Cell phones are getting better however pull in the photo and look how much detail is missing.


  • elcab18 likes this

#10 PeterPP

PeterPP

    Now Bad_Gray_wolf

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • LocationOntario, Canada
  • Lenses:.
    Canon 17-40 f/4L,
    Canon 24-105 f/4L IS
    Canon 70-200 f/4L IS
    Canon 50mm f/1.8
    Canon 24mm f/2.8 STM
    Canon 10-18 IS STM
    Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro
    Sigma 120-300 f/2.8,
    Tamron 28-75 f/2.8
    Bower 8mm f/3.5 fisheye
    Sony 18-55
    .
  • Flashes:.
    Sigma 500 dg super * 2
    Yongnuo yn-14ex ring fl
    Vivitar 3700
    White-Lightning x1600 * 2
    White-Lightning x800
    Alien-Bee abr800 ring flash
    .
  • Camera Body or Bodies:.
    Canon EOS 7d mkii
    Canon EOS 5d mkii
    Canon EOS xti
    Canon EOS 20d
    Sony NEX 5R
    GoPro Hero2
    Canon SX280HS
    .

Posted 24 April 2017 - 02:12 PM

On longer lenses I see its value. Not so much on short wide angle lenses.

As noted it adds weight and it seems each new iteration of a lens adds significant amounts to the cost over the previous version.

 

Suspect soon the choice will be gone unless you seek out older lenses, or move to those with inbred body stabilisation.


 Peter

Locked out of forums and can't get back in.Siobhan sent me email that they are no longer doing anything with the forums site and to use the FB group instead.

Oh woe





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users