Is Vr or IS for....

fracster

fracster

I love BRASH and BRASH loves me
Suspended / Banned
Messages
16,666
Name
Ade
Edit My Images
Yes
.. people who don`t know how to use a camera properly?

Be intrigued to know opinions and could be a worthwhile discussion.
 
Both Yes and No.

Yes, in that it compensates for poor technique, turning bin shots into those that will just pass muster.

No, in that it allows a competent photographer to stretch the bounds of what would not be usually possible, and turn average shots into good ones.


I'll be finished on my fence shortly, if you don't mind! :p :lol:
 
fracster said:
.. people who don`t know how to use a camera properly?

Be intrigued to know opinions and could be a worthwhile discussion.
Click to expand...

Feeling bored then? :lol:



I think VR/IS is for people who may at some point shoot at slower than advisable handheld shutter speeds, who don't want to, or can't use, a high ISO to get a fast enough shutter speed. :shrug:


Just because you may know how to use a camera, doesn't mean VR/IS wouldn't be of use. :shrug:
 
I think a lot of professional wedding togs would swear by the 70-200 with VR. VR will seriously help out in dark interiors or churches when you can't get high enough shutter speeds etc
 
I generally use manual lenses so most of the time don't get stabilisation with Canon cameras. That said, there are only a few occasions where I could have done with it:

1. Tracking slow moving wildlife in low light in the UK. On APS-C, things get noisy above ISO 3200 and carrying a tripod along with heavy lenses and bodies is a pain, literally.
2. At Yosemite National Park, trying to get some arty farty shots of waterfalls...using a tripod in a busy place was frustrating
3. New York at night, swapped for an ultra wide in the end to get blurry people walking effects

I found IS useful with Sony bodies with shorter length lenses, but with longer lenses it was a lottery. I've had this arguement with those who strongly believe in it though, so no more on that topic! IS on the Canon 100-400L is quite useful, for UK wildlife.
 
I'm struggling to see how it can be for people who don't know how to use their camera properly, so do elaborate.

VR opens up possibilities when you don't have a tripod with you or you're not allowed to use a tripod. Sure, you can't do long exposures, but it allows you to hand hold more effectively for longer. Coupled with high iso(6400+), it's allowed me to take photos that I probably wouldn't have got otherwise.
 
No - not a waste at all. In addition to the positives mentioned above, it allows design compromises in lenses to be made whilst still getting great pictures. This means lower cost, lighter weight and availability of great image quality to more people (due to that lower price). A couple of notable Canon examples:

  • 15-85 f3.5-f5.6 IS. If this lens didn't have a great 4 stop IS system, you'd always be fighting for light.
  • 24-105 f4 IS. Wouldn't be nearly as popular without IS.

In fact, if you look at the Canon lens lineup, apart from the 17-55 IS (constant f2.8), all other Canon IS lenses other than the 24-105 that have IS are either telephoto lenses (starting at 70mm+) or EF-S lenses with f5.6 at the longer end.

Without it, we'd all have to be carrying bagfuls of primes/heavy zooms and have entry level DSLR kits at >£1000
 
arad85 said:
No - not a waste at all. In addition to the positives mentioned above, it allows design compromises in lenses to be made whilst still getting great pictures. This means lower cost, lighter weight and availability of great image quality to more people (due to that lower price). A couple of notable Canon examples:

  • 15-85 f3.5-f5.6 IS. If this lens didn't have a great 4 stop IS system, you'd always be fighting for light.
  • 24-105 f4 IS. Wouldn't be nearly as popular without IS.

In fact, if you look at the Canon lens lineup, apart from the 17-55 IS (constant f2.8), all other Canon IS lenses other than the 24-105 that have IS are either telephoto lenses (starting at 70mm+) or EF-S lenses with f5.6 at the longer end.

Without it, we'd all have to be carrying bagfuls of primes/heavy zooms and have entry level DSLR kits at >£1000
Click to expand...

Nail and head.

I found IS extremely useful on my 55-250mm IS at Glastonbury when I was shooting Radiohead in poor light (it was ****ing down). I would normally have liked to have used 1/400 @250mm but this meant I was underexposing a lot, or getting a lot of noise. But using IS I could get 1/250 @250mm and I was able to get a few good shots at an acceptable ISO.

5897250418_4977443bc3_b.jpg


From memory this shot was @250mm 1/250 F5.6 ISO1600
 
Last edited:
Long day yesterday, so i`ll rephrase.

Does IS / VR make up for a lack of technique or is it another tool in the armoury?

I lean towards a bit of both, be interesting to see what others think. For the record, I only have one lens with VR and I used VR on it solely for low light wedding stuff. So I suppose it also depends on the type of photography one does. Do people use IS/VR on long lenses for wildlife for example,if so,under what circumstances?
 
I too only have the one lens with VR (70 - 200).
I also only use it for low light wedding shots.
It has it's uses but still won't get a sharp image if the shutter speed is not high enough for the subject.

None of my stuff from the 1980's had it obviously but, it was still possible to get sharp images with care.

I do believe technique is still important.

I also believe that VR/IS on smaller chaeaper lenses is the new marketing pull to increase sales to those who think "I must need it for every photo I take"
 
fracster said:
Does IS / VR make up for a lack of technique or is it another tool in the armoury?

For the record, I only have one lens with VR and I used VR on it solely for low light wedding stuff.
Click to expand...

Well you've answered your own question there I think. Would you have got those shots without the stabilisation.
 
PsiFox said:
I also believe that VR/IS on smaller chaeaper lenses is the new marketing pull to increase sales to those who think "I must need it for every photo I take"
Click to expand...

My thoughts as well..........:)
 
if it reduces the lens weight and reliabilty i would rather not have it
 
Are tripods for people who don't know how to use a camera properly as well?

It's basically the same question, IMHO, just a lower tech solution, and I can't imagine you'll get many people answering yes to that one.

What's the downside with IS/VR? The only one I can think of is it makes lenses heavier. There's no image quality downside, is there. There's nothing extra put between the subject and the sensor (is there?). Only one element that moves that would otherwise be fixed.

You could ask the same question about auto focus? Exposure metering?
 
With anyone who didn't have your post county Fracster, I'd have cried "troll!!!" :lol:

In all seriousness, the only reason I invested in a VR 70-200 was to help my camera out, as it can't do crazy high ISOs. VR just gives me a little safety net at the moment. When I do eventually get my hands in a body that'll do a useable ISO 3200+, then I can see it being used less.

Ultimately, I see it as a tool but I can see how it could easily be over relied on, if someone don't know how to get the most from their camera
 
Last edited:
rex008 said:
There's no image quality downside, is there.
Click to expand...

The suggestion is that in certain circumstances it can.

Have a read of the article linked to below. It is about the Nikon VR system but the author believes it applies similarly to the Canon IS system too.

http://bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm

Are there times when it shifts where it imparts a change to the image quality other than pure stabilization? I believe there are, though the impact is visually subtle. Some of the mid-range distance bokeh of certain VR lenses appears to be impacted by VR being on. Put another way, the background in the scene is slightly moving differently than the focus point in the optical path. This results in what I call "busy bokeh," or bokeh that doesn't have that simple shape and regularity we expect out of the highest quality glass.
Click to expand...


A couple of his rules are to remember that if the subject is moving you still need a high shutter speed to stop the subject motion. If it's over 1/500 you don't need VR.

Put anothr way, remember VR itself does not stop motion, only camera motion.

His discussion points and closing paragraphs make the case both ways.
 
Stabilisation is like any feature. It's use isn't compulsory. Nor should it be a crutch.

As someone who habitually shoots handheld using available light and who has an aversion to tripods I think it's great, but it's not magic. You still need good technique to get the best from it.
 
iamchrisphoto said:
I think a lot of professional wedding togs would swear by the 70-200 with VR. VR will seriously help out in dark interiors or churches when you can't get high enough shutter speeds etc
Click to expand...

Yip just love it. It just extends your options, there is no equipment or technology that will make a good photographer. Either you have a eye and a passion for it or you don't.

All the best;)
 
specialman said:
With anyone who didn't have your post county Fracster, I'd have cried "troll!!!" :lol:
Click to expand...

I just looked at the time he started the thread and assumed he had found the key to the drinks cabinet :naughty:

I have it on only two of my lenses, the one is always used on a tripod so I never switch on the VR, the other I use the VR if hand holding the lens.

None of my other lenses have it, and it is not something that I miss on them.
 
I was selling a sigma 300/2.8 lens once (which is non-IS). The buyer came round to try it and took shots indoors in awful light to check sharpness. They must have been at 1/40th of a second at best. I thought he was mad until I saw the pics - pin sharp. He had just retired from being a semi-pro goalkeeper in Brazil and his arm and hand strength meant he could hold the biggest lenses rock steady. Ever since I have felt my technique inadequate when lugging round long lenses.
 
PsiFox said:
The suggestion is that in certain circumstances it can.

Have a read of the article linked to below. It is about the Nikon VR system but the author believes it applies similarly to the Canon IS system too.

http://bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm




A couple of his rules are to remember that if the subject is moving you still need a high shutter speed to stop the subject motion. If it's over 1/500 you don't need VR.

Put anothr way, remember VR itself does not stop motion, only camera motion.

His discussion points and closing paragraphs make the case both ways.
Click to expand...

Thom talks a lot of nonsense sometimes. We've had lengthy debates about that link before. You'll notice the complete absense of pictorial evidence, which would surely be very easy to produce if there was actually any truth in it. And I've never seen any reliable evidence, nobody was able to recreate the effect he talks about, and neither was I (using Canon).

IS/VR is one of the best inventions of recent years. It works, it's cheap, and there are no downsides. Even the cheapest kit zooms have it.

The best analogy I can think of is that IS/VR is like having a monopod permanently attached. I don't see how anyone can argue that's anything but a fantastic asset.
 
rex008 said:
Are tripods for people who don't know how to use a camera properly as well?

It's basically the same question, IMHO, just a lower tech solution, and I can't imagine you'll get many people answering yes to that one.

What's the downside with IS/VR? The only one I can think of is it makes lenses heavier. There's no image quality downside, is there. There's nothing extra put between the subject and the sensor (is there?). Only one element that moves that would otherwise be fixed.

You could ask the same question about auto focus? Exposure metering?
Click to expand...

Indeed. Whether there is an effect on quality is a moot point, but the gains certainly outweigh the downsides.

I find the original question a bizarre one. The idea of good or bad technique in relation to the physical process of taking a photograph is irrelevant in relation to the output.

Is one photograph better than an other simply because the photographer could hand hold at 1/30 while the other used VR?

Of course not, so why worry about it?

The reason why is that there is a huge amount of snobbery (and inverse snobbery too) in photography. The notion of being a lesser photographer because you can't handhold below a certain is a classic example of this pointless snobbery.

The only thing that matters is the end result. whether someone manually focused or used the best auto-focus system is irrelevant.

Moving away from the snobbery aspect, there's a general lack of understanding about anything other than the photographer's own perspective or circumstances. In relation to the VR/IS debate this usually manifests itself in statements along the line of "You don't need VR with a wide angle lens", and is often follow by the tired poor technique etc guff.

Attitudes like that show a complete lack of vision and understanding. How many hill walkers would appreciate VR in a wide angle to enable them to shoot landscapes without a tripod? Or when a scene appears over the summit of a breathless climb? What about photographers who, either through age, a medical condition, disability or other reason find it hard to hold anything steady, never mind a camera? Or wouldn't VR be useful if you want to take photos from a moving vehicle, or a boat on water?

To conclude, anyone who suggests that VR is only for "people who don`t know how to use a camera properly" is simply showing that they don't understand photography properly.
 
HoppyUK said:
...

IS/VR is one of the best inventions of recent years. It works, it's cheap, and there are no downsides. Even the cheapest kit zooms have it...
Click to expand...

Actually there are; as has been pointed out in the sports forums numerous times! :)
 
NorthernNikon said:
Indeed. Whether there is an effect on quality is a moot point, but the gains certainly outweigh the downsides.

I find the original question a bizarre one. The idea of good or bad technique in relation to the physical process of taking a photograph is irrelevant in relation to the output.

Is one photograph better than an other simply because the photographer could hand hold at 1/30 while the other used VR?

Of course not, so why worry about it?

The reason why is that there is a huge amount of snobbery (and inverse snobbery too) in photography. The notion of being a lesser photographer because you can't handhold below a certain is a classic example of this pointless snobbery.

The only thing that matters is the end result. whether someone manually focused or used the best auto-focus system is irrelevant.

Moving away from the snobbery aspect, there's a general lack of understanding about anything other than the photographer's own perspective or circumstances. In relation to the VR/IS debate this usually manifests itself in statements along the line of "You don't need VR with a wide angle lens", and is often follow by the tired poor technique etc guff.

Attitudes like that show a complete lack of vision and understanding. How many hill walkers would appreciate VR in a wide angle to enable them to shoot landscapes without a tripod? Or when a scene appears over the summit of a breathless climb? What about photographers who, either through age, a medical condition, disability or other reason find it hard to hold anything steady, never mind a camera? Or wouldn't VR be useful if you want to take photos from a moving vehicle, or a boat on water?

To conclude, anyone who suggests that VR is only for "people who don`t know how to use a camera properly" is simply showing that they don't understand photography properly.
Click to expand...

On the whole I'd tend to agree, but I think that you might be looking at the snobbery part from the wrong angle.

The whole 'how slow can you hand hold' thing is pure macho BS, as everyone's circumstances are different; ie medical, physical, location state of fitness and recent exertion etc etc as you've mentioned.

In essence IS/VR is another tool that's designed to aid image taking, not substitute poor practice with technology. It's the same with rifle shooting; one of the first things that you learn is how to hold the weapon and how to breath correctly. To an extent VR/IS does mitigate sloppy techniques, which is fine in normal circumstances, but when you try to push the boundaries a bit you are likely to come a cropper.
 
DemiLion said:
Actually there are; as has been pointed out in the sports forums numerous times! :)
Click to expand...

Image quality issues? I have never seen any.

Seriously, if you can post a link to any conclusive pictorial evidence, I'd like to see it.
 
HoppyUK said:
IS/VR is one of the best inventions of recent years. It works, it's cheap, and there are no downsides. Even the cheapest kit zooms have it.


Richard, maybe I am missing something, regarding IS being cheap.:thinking:
Example of the Canon 70-200 range appears to have a price difference of anything between £400 to £800, for both the f4 and f2.8.
Frequently the question comes up for a prospective buyer is the extra money worth it for the IS.
At these price differences I would certainly not call it cheap and worth it, I suppose comes down to what conditions you are shooting.
Click to expand...
 
IS / VR / OS etc is just another useful tool to add to the photographers kit bag.

As are low f/stop lenses, expanded iso capabilities, tripods etc etc!
 
Peter10d said:
Cost :D

Personally I think it is overrated, but I only have one lens that has IS.
If I am shooting in dark conditions and a tripod is not suitable for use, then I prefer to increase the ISO, as current available software seems to deal will noise very well.
Click to expand...

Cost?

Not at all.

On the Canon front, the kit lenses come with is, as does the 55-250, 18-135 etc and these have very good IS systems And none if them are expensive.

Cost is no longer an issue with IS, if a lens is expensive it's down to the optics and build.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
Image quality issues? I have never seen any.

Seriously, if you can post a link to any conclusive pictorial evidence, I'd like to see it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, we're talking at cross purposes! :)

In terms of IQ there probably aren't any issues, but in usage terms then IS can affect sports images (or any subject) when it comes to fast focus acquisition.
 
DemiLion said:
Sorry, we're talking at cross purposes! :)

In terms of IQ there probably aren't any issues, but in usage terms then IS can affect sports images (or any subject) when it comes to fast focus acquisition.
Click to expand...

Only if the system isn't already spooled up.
 
odd jim said:
Cost?
Click to expand...
I'll say it again ;), IS allows manufacturers to design relatively slow lenses (which keeps cost down) and still have them usable which is exactly what is required for consumer grade lenses. IS on shorter focal lengths are predominantly on the cheaper, slower, variable aperture lenses (with one or two notable exceptions).
 
arad85 said:
I'll say it again ;), IS allows manufacturers to design relatively slow lenses (which keeps cost down) and still have them usable which is exactly what is required for consumer grade lenses. IS on shorter focal lengths are predominantly on the cheaper, slower, variable aperture lenses (with one or two notable exceptions).
Click to expand...

Well yes, that's exactly what I said and you are in complete agreement with me!
 
odd jim said:
Well yes, that's exactly what I said and you are in complete agreement with me!
Click to expand...
No, no... I think it's you that's in complete agreement with me ;) :D

actually, I was more reinforcing low cost lenses being enabled by IS, as opposed to it being a cheap adder
 
arad85 said:
No, no... I think it's you that's in complete agreement with me ;) :D

actually, I was more reinforcing low cost lenses being enabled by IS, as opposed to it being a cheap adder
Click to expand...

Lol let's just agree to agree!
 
Peter10d said:
HoppyUK said:
IS/VR is one of the best inventions of recent years. It works, it's cheap, and there are no downsides. Even the cheapest kit zooms have it.


Richard, maybe I am missing something, regarding IS being cheap.:thinking:
Example of the Canon 70-200 range appears to have a price difference of anything between £400 to £800, for both the f4 and f2.8.
Frequently the question comes up for a prospective buyer is the extra money worth it for the IS.
At these price differences I would certainly not call it cheap and worth it, I suppose comes down to what conditions you are shooting.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's the 70-200L Canons that everybody cites as examples of the high cost of IS, but the IS versions are completely different lenses. They're better optically, they have circular apertures and weathproofing, as well as IS.

And as quoted above, IS is fitted to most of the cheapest lenses you can get.

DemiLion said:
Sorry, we're talking at cross purposes! :)

In terms of IQ there probably aren't any issues, but in usage terms then IS can affect sports images (or any subject) when it comes to fast focus acquisition.
Click to expand...

Sorry, yes. Some say IS is a problem because you have wait for it to spool up - like, what, 1/2 a second?

I just don't understand that myself. If I'm shooting fast action, I always have the shutter release half-pressed and IS fully spooled up, with AF locked on and exposure settled.

There is even a counter argument that says IS benefits AF because it gives the system a stabilised image to lock on to more accurately.

It does flatten your battery if IS is permanently on though, but then taking pictures flattens your battery, chimping flattens it even faster. Take a spare.

I don't see those as downsides to IS, but if anyone sees it differently, well just turn it off.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top