VR vs. non-VR

[VMalska]

Hey:

I'm a little bit new to cameras without built-in image stabilization, so going to ask for advice. I am looking into a 70-300 and thinking about VR vs. non VR (as the thread's title suggests). I tested my 55-200 VR at 100mm and it took me until 5 seconds shutter speed to notice much difference between VR and non-VR. Can anyone enlighten me that knows more about the benefits of VR?

Thanks,
VMalska

Edit: Thought I'd add this. At 5 seconds shutter speed (and even at 1 second)...I use a tripod. I just tried taking pictures (of the same thing obviously)...once again...I see no difference until 4 or 5 seconds...and by that time it's a matter of terrible blur vs. horrible blur. If the difference is none, even at 200mm (and oh, by the way, lowest I shoot handheld is 1/5 or 1/10)...what's VR's advantage?

[Kasakato]

VR stabilizes the image. Thats all.

[VMalska]

VR stabilizes the image. That's all.

...I saw no stabilization differences at any shutter speeds I'd shoot handheld at in my tests. That's why I'm asking if I am somehow wrong, the conditions I tested under were wrong...that other benefits are offered perhaps...

[Kasakato]

You used a tripod, of course there going to be the same. VR only helps when you handhold.

[VMalska]

You used a tripod, of course they're going to be the same. VR only helps when you handhold.

I did not use a tripod...I meant that I would not do 1 second+ shutter speeds while hand holding...and that is the first shutter speed where I noticed the slightest bit of a difference between VR and non-vr.

Point is, what it runs down to: 1/2 Shutter speed images came out the same whether I was using VR or not.

[Kasakato]

I did not use a tripod...I meant that I would not do 1 second+ shutter speeds while hand holding...and that is the first shutter speed where I noticed the slightest bit of a difference between VR and non-vr.

Point is, what it runs down to: 1/2 Shutter speed images came out the same whether I was using VR or not.

Try 200mm. If you can pull off 1/2s every single time, in every single situation, you can save yourself some money by not buying VR. Point in case: its impossible.

[aximrocks]

Image stabilization (VR/IS/OS) is very useful for longer focal length (200mm+)
There's no way I could get this shot hand-held at 1/250 @ 500mm on a crop body without stabilization.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2672/4003090421_d47377cf2b_o.jpg

[VMalska]

Image stabilization (VR/IS/OS) is very useful for longer focal length (200mm+)
There's no way I could get this shot hand-held at 1/250 @ 500mm on a crop body without stabilization.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2672/4003090421_d47377cf2b_o.jpg

At 500mm, definitely not...but at 300? I need a zoom for my D90 backup...and not sure whether going with the VR is a good plan (for all I care, I could get a 35 f 1.8 from the cash I would have left from buying a non-VR rather than VR)...or I might just screw these zoom lenses and go for a prime on my Sony.

[Kasakato]

There is more than VR separating the old 70-300 from the new 70-300VR. If image quality is of any concern, the difference it worth it. And yes, it makes a difference at 300mm.

[NewsyL]

At 5 seconds shutter speed (and even at 1 second)...I use a tripod.

Have you read the user manual for the lens?

Do they suggest disabling VR if the camera is mounted on a tripod?

I ask this specifically because for the two camera systems I've used with one form or another (lens or body) of optical stabilization, the manufacturer has stated to turn stabilization OFF if mounted on a tripod.

The key issue is that the stabilization system expects there to be a certain amount of movement to be counteracted and if it is not there, it actually induces a motion like blur into the image.

I imagine that with a flimsy inexpensive tripod, you will have some movement and the VR would prove useful. An expensive heavy tripod with a top notch ballhead would be rock solid and pretty much eliminate lens movement with a short focal length - in this case the VR could be detrimental.

I'm not intimately familiar with Nikon's recommendations on this issue so let us know what you find.

.

[Kasakato]

Nikon does say to turn it off on a tripod.

[VMalska]

Have you read the user manual for the lens?

Do they suggest disabling VR if the camera is mounted on a tripod?

I ask this specifically because for the two camera systems I've used with one form or another (lens or body) of optical stabilization, the manufacturer has stated to turn stabilization OFF if mounted on a tripod.

The key issue is that the stabilization system expects there to be a certain amount of movement to be counteracted and if it is not there, it actually induces a motion like blur into the image.

I imagine that with a flimsy inexpensive tripod, you will have some movement and the VR would prove useful. An expensive heavy tripod with a top notch ballhead would be rock solid and pretty much eliminate lens movement with a short focal length - in this case the VR could be detrimental.

I'm not intimately familiar with Nikon's recommendations on this issue so let us know what you find.

.

Have not read the manual, but I've never used stabilization on a tripod thanks to a friend's advice long ago.

Edit: We seem to be getting confused over use/used. Use = Constant; Used = During my tests...

[Dr_luv]

VR is quite useful as aximrocks shows with that great photo above. My own anecdotal evidence for the usefulness of VR below; 18-105 kit lens at 18mm for 2 seconds hand held. I'm quite sure the picture would not have been so sharp without the VR.

I'm surprised that you see no differences between hand held pictures taken with and without VR at 100mm at 1/5. Are you zooming in 100% to confirm the sharpness? If there really is no difference, I'm very impressed.


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3422/3981497803_f49120f3fe.jpg

[VMalska]

VR is quite useful as aximrocks shows with that great photo above. My own anecdotal evidence for the usefulness of VR below; 18-105 kit lens at 18mm for 2 seconds hand held. I'm quite sure the picture would not have been so sharp without the VR.

I'm surprised that you see no differences between hand held pictures taken with and without VR at 100mm at 1/5. Are you zooming in 100% to confirm the sharpness? If there really is no difference, I'm very impressed.


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3422/3981497803_f49120f3fe.jpg

Love the picture. It makes the display seem slow in a sense compared to the people. When I tested it, I scanned the card into my computer and examined all of the images. As it was, my testing could've been flawed because I was shooting still subjects and was not tired at all. As it is, I don't think I've got time to experiment by purchasing a lens without VR. I love Sony's in camera stabilization, but alas, Nikon doesn't provide one, pushing up the price of their lenses.

A300. I was given a 75-300 to test and I made do with what I had (a neighbourhood block):

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/6420/dsc00153y.jpg (http://img188.imageshack.us/i/dsc00153y.jpg/)

Edit: The above image was taken at 300mm with 2X Digital Zoom.

[Kasakato]

I love Sony's in camera stabilization, but alas, Nikon doesn't provide one, pushing up the price of their lenses.

A300. I was given a 75-300 to test and I made do with what I had (a neighbourhood block):



Nikon claims being able to tailor each VR system to the individual lens nets an overall stabilization advantage. I personally enjoy the stabilized VF as it makes composing a lot easier.

[VMalska]

Nikon claims being able to tailor each VR system to the individual lens nets an overall stabilization advantage. I personally enjoy the stabilized VF as it makes composing a lot easier.

There's no question Nikon's VR lens stabilization works better than Sony's built-in...it's just it would've been nice to have a built-in one for Nikon as well to avoid paying great amounts for lenses (that could be turned off when using a VR lens)...Also, the fact that my D60 can't use my D90's lenses is very annoying^^...

[Kasakato]

There's no question Nikon's VR lens stabilization works better than Sony's built-in...it's just it would've been nice to have a built-in one for Nikon as well to avoid paying great amounts for lenses (that could be turned off when using a VR lens)...Also, the fact that my D60 can't use my D90's lenses is very annoying^^...

Which lenses do you have that won't work?

[VMalska]

Which lenses do you have that won't work?

50mm f/1.4

80-200mm f/2.8

As far as the 70-300 VR goes, I'm going to buy both the VR and non-VR, go on a day of shooting (probably at the zoo) and then return whichever I find worse performance for my purposes.

[Kasakato]

50mm f/1.4

80-200mm f/2.8

As far as the 70-300 VR goes, I'm going to buy both the VR and non-VR, go on a day of shooting (probably at the zoo) and then return whichever I find worse performance for my purposes.

Minus while stick to the D90, then. The old 70-300 is horrible compared to the new lens. The new design with VR was a re-work of the optics.

[TenzoR]

50mm f/1.4

80-200mm f/2.8

As far as the 70-300 VR goes, I'm going to buy both the VR and non-VR, go on a day of shooting (probably at the zoo) and then return whichever I find worse performance for my purposes.

Both the 50mm and the 80-200mm works fine on the D60.... unless you are talking about the AF

[VMalska]

Both the 50mm and the 80-200mm works fine on the D60.... unless you are talking about the AF

Was talking about the 50mm AF - yes. Anyway thanks guys for the feedback - I decided to stick with my 55-200 VR because I don't need more range for casual shooting...and check macro lenses.

[cyder]

Hey:

I'm a little bit new to cameras without built-in image stabilization, so going to ask for advice. I am looking into a 70-300 and thinking about VR vs. non VR (as the thread's title suggests). I tested my 55-200 VR at 100mm and it took me until 5 seconds shutter speed to notice much difference between VR and non-VR. Can anyone enlighten me that knows more about the benefits of VR?

Thanks,
VMalska

Edit: Thought I'd add this. At 5 seconds shutter speed (and even at 1 second)...I use a tripod. I just tried taking pictures (of the same thing obviously)...once again...I see no difference until 4 or 5 seconds...and by that time it's a matter of terrible blur vs. horrible blur. If the difference is none, even at 200mm (and oh, by the way, lowest I shoot handheld is 1/5 or 1/10)...what's VR's advantage?
VR isn't going to do much at 5 seconds or 1 second shutter speed.

if a 1/30 you would get a bit of blur but at say 1/60th you wouldn't. VR would help you not get blur at 1/30. Most marketing material says VR/IS/OS can help you by up to 3 stops.

on a tripod the camera isn't moving anywear, so there shouldn't be any shakes so it shouldn't make a difference. The only shake that could occur is if you weren't using a remote or something to trigger the shutter. I think Sony specifically says to turn off steady shot while on a tripod, not sure about the rest.

[VMalska]

VR isn't going to do much at 5 seconds or 1 second shutter speed.

if a 1/30 you would get a bit of blur but at say 1/60th you wouldn't. VR would help you not get blur at 1/30. Most marketing material says VR/IS/OS can help you by up to 3 stops.

on a tripod the camera isn't moving anywear, so there shouldn't be any shakes so it shouldn't make a difference. The only shake that could occur is if you weren't using a remote or something to trigger the shutter. I think Sony specifically says to turn off steady shot while on a tripod, not sure about the rest.

mhm...a tripod is my best friend^^...not really...but pretty close...with a D60, the only lens available to me anyway is the Sigma 70-300 APO DG...might take a look at that for the sake of it.