how good is IS/VR etc

D

Dave Pickett

Suspended / Banned
Messages
992
Name
Dave Pickett
Edit My Images
Yes
I am something of a doubting Thomas and whilst in my case VR is impressive, I do wonder whether you will still get a sharper image if you either use a higher shutter without VR or indeed a support such as monopod or tripod?

In other words, just how good is VR if you are seeking really sharp images?
 
one of the best inventions ever, no idea why people knock it
 
I think in balance, VR or IS is worse than a perfectly still object . short ish shutter speed and a tripod

but for anything handheld I'd use IS on my camera, even on something like 1/60 or 1/100 as something even sharper is always good :)
 
Like most things, IS/VR is an aid not an end in itself. Hand held low/medium shutter speeds it is a real boon but if you have a tripod then VR off - always.
 
I've moved from a Sony kit with in-body IS to Canon with no IS in some of my lenses. I notice the difference in those in-between shots where the light looks OK to the eye but is in fact pretty dark. Using an 85mm lens, I used to be able to get away with 1/30th of a second shots with IS when I now need 1/100 or thereabouts. I'd much rather have IS than have to bump up the ISO.

As mentioned, IS/VR is no substitute for a tripod or a really high shutter speed but they just aren't always available. Note that IS does nothing for a moving subject - that will always need a high shutter speed.
 
It's easy - VR/IS is yet another tool in you arsenal to get a shot. As it can marginally affect image sharpness, you can turn it off when you don't need it (on a tripod for example), but if it gets you a shot you would have otherwise missed, that in itself justifies the entire technology.
In dull daylight I would not want to be without for anything over 70mm.
 
IS has great potential for pulling in ambient light in flash lit situations with silly slow shutter speeds. I mean I was using a 1/30th second sutter to drag in ambient the other day as a little blur in the bg isn't a massive issue but IS would help that and let me go lower

I find a tripod a bit of a pain for a lot of portrait based things where I like to be flexible hence why I'll sell a kidney for a 24-70 IS if they ever make one :D
 
it never seems to be as effective as the advertising claims (sometimes 3-4 stops), but I wouldn't be without it as a lot more of my shots make the cut when it's on than when it's been off
 
i have been playing with my sigma optical stabiliser just to see if its working ok as i have just sold the lens and wanted to know everything was spot on and i was very impressed with the difference with it on at slow shutter speeds but it does mess the image up if used on a tripod

i have done some panning at a local charity rally and the os worked great with it

i just hope the canon is as good when i get it
 
The only lens I have with IS is the 17-55.

I've found the IS does what it says on the tin and has been handy in the past, although on a lens this short 3-4 stops below hand holdable is getting pretty slow (c.1/4 sec at 17mm) and subject motion blur can be a problem unless it's completely stationary.

I think IS is far more of a boon on longer lenses - I certainly wish I'd bought the IS varient of the 70-200 now...
 
On my 70-300 IS, you can physically see the image stop "wobbling" in the viewfinder when the IS kicks in. At the 300mm end, this is a real help.
As said by others, it's no replacement for good technique to actually hold the camera steady, but it all adds up to sharper images.

As for moving subjects, mode 2 IS for panning works a treat :thumbs:
 
Take a look,

1-6 Seconds IS off
7-13 Seconds IS on

[YOUTUBE]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yb0ydZwZc_I&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yb0ydZwZc_I&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]
 
I must admit the Vr on my Nikkor 70 - 300 is really impressive, but this week end I actually remembered my monopod, and switched VR off, still getting good results.

My curiosity is whether VR does degrade the image very slightly vs a steady camera + high shutter speed. I acknowledge that VR allows shots that otherwise would not work handheld........
 
ianmarsh said:
Forgot about panning - true, IS will help there.
Click to expand...
actually I'm not sure that it will but good technique does & certainly having IS won't do any harm.
I know people who have non-IS lenses (e.g. 400mm) but have superb panning technique that achieve great shots that are at least equal to others using IS lenses.
I do think that panning is a special case though.
 
ianmarsh said:
Forgot about panning - true, IS will help there.
Click to expand...
actually I'm not sure that it will but good technique does.
I know people who have non-IS lenses (e.g. 400mm) but have superb panning technique that achieve great shots that are at least equal to others using IS lenses but possibly poorer technique.
& I know others with IS lenses (100-400 L, 300/2.8 Ls) who turn it totally off for panning.

I do think that panning is a special case though.
 
Meh :)
 
I have a nikon 80-200 afd f2.8 and a nikon 300mm afd f4. These are lenses with great optical quality and neither have vr. With the D700 I just whack up he iso if I want to increase the shutter speed. Anything up to 2000 iso no problems with noise
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top