Is Vr or IS for....

HoppyUK said:
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.
Click to expand...


He's not talking nonsense in this case. I don't know what it's like on the Canon side, but on Nikon DSLRs VR is only activated with the half/full shutter press, not AF-On. The effect is worst between 1/300 and 1/2000 on a bright day - if you take a shot without letting the VR spool up, the change to the image path imparts a slight ghosting. I don't find it a problem - it is no issue if you either turn off VR or half press before the shot's taken - but to pretend it doesn't exist is disingenuous. It doesn't detract from the fact that VR is incredibly useful :)
 
HoppyUK said:
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..
Click to expand...

You dont do you... I dont undertsand things but I keep an open mind . You just seem to keep telling everyone it isnt a problem because you dont see it as a problem...very narrow minded if you dont mind me saying..

I was at a match last week shooting iso 12800and low shutter speed.. IS would have been a great help to me.. i could have lowered the shutter thus lowered the iso... But the speed decrease of even half a second would have meant losing far too many shots..

I will be at basketball indoors tommorow evening.. if I wait the half a second for IS to kick in it will be too late for 70%-80% of the shots i want..

the truth is that half a second is critical for a lot of sports shooters... but you simply dont get it so you believe its not... as I say.,. narrow minded...
 
ausemmao said:
He's not talking nonsense in this case. I don't know what it's like on the Canon side, but on Nikon DSLRs VR is only activated with the half/full shutter press, not AF-On. The effect is worst between 1/300 and 1/2000 on a bright day - if you take a shot without letting the VR spool up, the change to the image path imparts a slight ghosting. I don't find it a problem - it is no issue if you either turn off VR or half press before the shot's taken - but to pretend it doesn't exist is disingenuous. It doesn't detract from the fact that VR is incredibly useful :)
Click to expand...

That's not what he's talking about.

He is saying that because IS/VR is constantly moving, in some situations (ie 1/500 to 1/1000sec IIRC) it can potentially introduce more blurring than it reduces.

The theory is right enough, I understand that in principle. But if there's any truth in it making any difference in practise, it should be easy enough to demonstrate. Which is the bit that's missing.

I've taken hundreds of pictures at a range of speeds, with deliberate movement and without, IS on and off, side by side, every which way I can think of. IS wins every time.
 
KIPAX said:
You dont do you... I dont undertsand things but I keep an open mind . You just seem to keep telling everyone it isnt a problem because you dont see it as a problem...very narrow minded if you dont mind me saying..

I was at a match last week shooting iso 12800and low shutter speed.. IS would have been a great help to me.. i could have lowered the shutter thus lowered the iso... But the speed decrease of even half a second would have meant losing far too many shots..

I will be at basketball indoors tommorow evening.. if I wait the half a second for IS to kick in it will be too late for 70%-80% of the shots i want..

the truth is that half a second is critical for a lot of sports shooters... but you simply dont get it so you believe its not... as I say.,. narrow minded...
Click to expand...

No, I see the problem, and it's a real one. I just don't see that it's an IS problem - it's a technique issue. You can't expect something to work when it's not turned on properly.
 
HoppyUK said:
No, I see the problem, and it's a real one. I just don't see that it's an IS problem - it's a technique issue. You can't expect something to work when it's not turned on properly.
Click to expand...

It's not a technique issue, it's a speed issue; and in this case the speed of the game. At full high speed continuous (ie 10 fps) a football kicked at full pace will be in shot for one frame- if you are lucky; less than 1/1250th and it's blurred.

You have to switch focus from the far end of the field to the near end in less than half a second and acquire focus. You can't keep AF running during that time because the lens will go haywire trying to lock focus all over the place.

Football (and Rugby to a lesser extent) isn't about the speed of the man it's about the speed of the ball, which means frequent shifts in focal target, at different FL's if you are using a zoom, and widely differing focal distances. Keep running your AF during those switches and you will screw up and miss.

Using IS in high speed sport is poor technique.
 
I can see how it can be useful and indeed have benefited from lens stabilisation a few times. It can be useful at all focal lengths- depending on what you shoot and the circumstances. Wide angle I would have said no in the past but having sprinted (eh- Usain watch out;)) down a path to a viewing spot on the Ben this year I noticed I was distinctly wobbly when it came to the shot.
However what gets me is the unquantified statements about how stabilisation allows for shots in low light without any qualification of what is being shot because if it's fast moving it's doing he-haw:D. I also don't like the way that manufacturers are substituting fast apertures with stabilisation- so we get stabilisation but max f3.5 or worse- can't we have both?

Personally I'd like Nikon to take the bold step and offer both but they are far too busy off on a jolly. I don't think it would detract from sales either- especially if in-lens is better. Just gives another option- saved for another thread though:)
 
as soon as my shutter button is half pressed the sr/vr/os is on,and when i focus using bbf it works a treat, if i want to stop the sr/vr/os working i just let off the shutter half press,, for fast moving sport there should be no need for sr/vr/os/is because you need fast shutter speeds like 1000/sec which is fast enough to not need sr/vr/os,

is vr/os/sr/is good yes dont have it on 2 of my lenses but the rest i do.
 
scottthehat said:
as soon as my shutter button is half pressed the sr/vr/os is on
Click to expand...

No it's not.. it takes a slight delay to come on.. hence the problem if that slight delay loses you the shot.. I imagine in 99% of photogrpahy it doesn't.. but in fast moving sport it can..

scottthehat said:
for fast moving sport there should be no need for sr/vr/os/is because you need fast shutter speeds like 1000/sec .
Click to expand...

Pray tell how that works when I am working at iso 12800 and f2.8 and still theres not enough light to get anywhere near that shutter speed..I am lucky to get a 320 shutter in some places indoors or out...
 
HoppyUK said:
No, I see the problem, and it's a real one. I just don't see that it's an IS problem - it's a technique issue. You can't expect something to work when it's not turned on properly.
Click to expand...

So all the sports photographers are using the wrong technique..
 
KIPAX said:
No it's not.. it takes a slight delay to come on.. hence the problem if that slight delay loses you the shot.. I imagine in 99% of photogrpahy it doesn't.. but in fast moving sport it can..



Pray tell how that works when I am working at iso 12800 and f2.8 and still theres not enough light to get anywhere near that shutter speed..I am lucky to get a 320 shutter in some places indoors or out...
Click to expand...
no it does come on but it does take half a second to settle, but it does stay on untill i let off the haff shutter, so i could stay on untill the battery ran out if i let it and focusing is fine as it done by bbf.
so i wont lose any shots.
 
KIPAX said:
No it's not.. it takes a slight delay to come on.. hence the problem if that slight delay loses you the shot.. I imagine in 99% of photogrpahy it doesn't.. but in fast moving sport it can..



Pray tell how that works when I am working at iso 12800 and f2.8 and still theres not enough light to get anywhere near that shutter speed..I am lucky to get a 320 shutter in some places indoors or out...
Click to expand...
no it is on, but it does take half a second to settle, but it does stay on untill i let off the haff shutter, so i could stay on untill the battery ran out if i let it and focusing is fine as it done by bbf.
so i wont lose any shots.
 
scottthehat said:
no it is on, but it does take half a second to settle, but it does stay on untill i let off the haff shutter, so i could stay on untill the battery ran out if i let it and focusing is fine as it done by bbf.
so i wont lose any shots.
Click to expand...

You can't keep the focus and is on for a whole football game or any other game.. battery or not... Thats a rediculous solution ;)
 
KIPAX said:
You can't keep the focus and is on for a whole football game or any other game.. battery or not... Thats a rediculous solution ;)
Click to expand...
i could if i wanted i just keep holding the shuuter button half pressed take shot and make sure its still half pressed and af well just press the button when i want it to focus, but i wouldnt want to keep the shutter button pressed for a hole rugby or football match, well half time then full time., but it could be done.
adont know how long the batteryss would last.
 
Last edited:
KIPAX said:
So all the sports photographers are using the wrong technique..
Click to expand...

No, I didn't say that either. You seem to be trying to pick an argument where none exists.

There are certain well known situations where IS either doesn't work very well or even works against you - on a tripod say (I don't trust 'tripod sensing' ;)) panning eratic subjects like biffing, certain sports, whatever.

In which case, turn it off.

When I say there is no penalty to having IS, that's what I mean. It works when you want it/when appropriate, and when you don't, just turn it off and it's as if it wasn't there.
 
HoppyUK said:
No, I didn't say that either. You seem to be trying to pick an argument where none exists..
Click to expand...

Ithought it was possible for two adults to have a different opinion without arguing. But it seems you can't see that either and now think I am after an argument ..


Like I say... narrow minded :(
 
KIPAX said:
Ithought it was possible for two adults to have a different opinion without arguing. But it seems you can't see that either and now think I am after an argument ..


Like I say... narrow minded :(
Click to expand...

Well, if there are two differing opinions it's hard not to call that an argument... :thinking:

But in this case, I don't think there's an argument because I'm agreeing with you! There are occasions when IS either doesn't work or is inappropriate, eg the example you've cited, if you say so, and you're the best judge of that.

In which case, turn it off an you've lost nothing, that's all I'm saying. But if you don't have IS fitted, you can't turn it back on when it does work.
 
The reason I ask the question is this:

If I take a shot without VR and take the shot with VR, the IQ is better without. so, is the VR/IS al it is cracked up to be.........:shrug:
 
Martyn... said:
I just looked at the time he started the thread and assumed he had found the key to the drinks cabinet :naughty:
Click to expand...

I wish mate, got two new jobs, unsociable hours to say the least.............:thumbsdown:
 
I can't believe anyone would suggest that the Fracster would start a thread to cause dissent, what is the world coming to!!! :D
Some interesting points amongst the argy bargy though, I myself have started turning the IS off when shooting fast moving stuff, (like butterflies zipping from spot to spot) as I felt the IS spooling up was causing me to miss shots due to slower AF lock…….
I think the IS as crutch for bad technique is over rated though, (IMHO) it does make marginal shots more likely to be keepers when allied with good technique and making the best of your other options and tools, but that's all part and part of being a photographer rather than a snapper, no? :thinking:

Tara
 
:lol:....Honestly, Tara, no dissent intended, just interested to see what others thought of VR/IS.
 
Some people seem to think that it's a matter of good technique or IS. A sensible photographer realises that there are situations where good technique AND IS can be useful.
 
Ed Sutton said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is what I agree with this most. As my camera is Sony, all three of my lenses are stabilized, including a prime. Since Sony is not known for good high ISOs, I like the stabilization because I can use a slightly higher shutter speed (or bigger aperture) and a lower ISO.
 
Rustico said:
This is what I agree with this most. As my camera is Sony, all three of my lenses are stabilized, including a prime. Since Sony is not known for good high ISOs, I like the stabilization because I can use a slightly higher shutter speed (or bigger aperture) and a lower ISO.
Click to expand...
you mean a lower or slower shutter speed to keep the iso lower.
 
I'm a happy snapper, and I love IS/VR/OS
good example, F2.8 or similar in doors at wedding and I got a shot of the bride pulling a face.
the flash wasn't on the camera at the time and I think it's a great little candid snap.
indoors and random lighting mean that it's a little soft. I think with IS it would have been sharper (naturally) handheld (and a little drunk) at about 100mm (cropped so 160mm)
 
scottthehat said:
you mean a lower or slower shutter speed to keep the iso lower.
Click to expand...

...and smaller aperture?!
 
Im yet to find out if VR is any good for me personally, as none of my lenses have it...:D
 
fracster said:
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?
Click to expand...

This can of worms is equil too,
Does Digital make up for lack of technique or is it another tool?

Its simple, there all tools at the end of the day, having a CNC milling machine doesn't make the machinest less compitant it just expands there productivety.

As does image stabilization it just makes things that little bit easier I'd like to see a pro with his so called better technique get a shot in a dark church/assembly/any dark situation at say 1/25th at 200mm without VR/IS/OS etc....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top