IS/VR in lens vs body
PhotoCamel: Your friendly photo community, with free discussion forums, digital photography reviews, photo sharing, galleries, downloads, blogs, photography contests, and prizes.
 

Go Back   PhotoCamel - Your Friendly Photography Forum > PhotoCamel Lounge > Photography Talk

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-27-2005   #1
Llama
 
Alice Morrison's Avatar
 
Posts: 578
CamelKarma: 40
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default IS/VR in lens vs body

Who has used a system with IS/VR in the body rather than in the lens? It seems to me that IS/VR in the body would have its limitations, primarily with very long lenses. I can't see, for instance, a Canon body with VR trying to keep up with the movement of a 600mm lens attached.

__________________
Members don't see ads in threads. Register for your free account today and become a member of PhotoCamel to open up the site's many benefits and features.
Alice Morrison is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2005   #2
Llama
 
Alice Morrison's Avatar
 
Posts: 578
CamelKarma: 40
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: IS/VR in lens vs body

I originally thought it made more sense in the body. But what do I know? That's why I asked.
Alice Morrison is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2005   #3
Guanaco
 
Posts: 424
CamelKarma: 32
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: IS/VR in lens vs body

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavel
Well keep in mind that I could be wrong with most of what I've said
I think that it a hard call right now with the edge still going to lens based systems of course. They've had 15 years more of developement but though new the Minolta system seems to be doing it's job in a great way. This might be a question to be asked there as these folks have the most experience with this. I find it portending to see that the new minolta maxxum 5D is going to have the anti shake included - and at a sub 100 price. Darn impressive.
I've been enjoying my Nikon 24-120VR lens but it does take a toll on the battery (normally I can run for a long time without even thinking about the battery but with VR on all the time I do have to recharge more often and a few times have run out of juice mid-shoot). I do get a bit queasy sometimes waiting for the scene to settle. So if a lens has VR does that mean it will tend to run softer in general than a non-VR lens?

Here's a without/with comparison of the VR:


And with the VR it seems like it's a bit easier to get shots like this with the background stable and a foreground object blurred:


Typically with the VR I like the fact that I can crank up my F a bit for increased depth of field in landscape shots and such.

I considered the konica-minolta before getting my e-300 but at the time I was fixated on dust and the oly ccd dust shaker seemed like just the ticket.
__________________
Oregon, USA<br />Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut.
hartcons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2005   #4
Dromedary
 
Posts: 1,156
CamelKarma: 2079
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: IS/VR in lens vs body

Quote:

I've been enjoying my Nikon 24-120VR lens but it does take a toll on the battery (normally I can run for a long time without even thinking about the battery but with VR on all the time I do have to recharge more often and a few times have run out of juice mid-shoot). I do get a bit queasy sometimes waiting for the scene to settle. So if a lens has VR does that mean it will tend to run softer in general than a non-VR lens?
Waiting for the scene to settle? Does the VR take that long?
__________________
http://www.photosbymorgan2.com -Canon 1DS Mark II, Canon 1D Mark II, Lenses, studio equipment and many antique cameras
photosbymorgan2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2005   #5
Guanaco
 
Posts: 424
CamelKarma: 32
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: IS/VR in lens vs body

Quote:
Originally Posted by photosbymorgan2
Waiting for the scene to settle? Does the VR take that long?
It does seem to wobble around a bit before stabilizing. Normally I give it a second or two. Is it supposed to be instantaneous?
__________________
Oregon, USA<br />Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut.
hartcons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2005   #6
Dromedary
 
Posts: 1,156
CamelKarma: 2079
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: IS/VR in lens vs body

Quote:
Originally Posted by hartcons
Quote:
Originally Posted by photosbymorgan2
Waiting for the scene to settle? Does the VR take that long?
It does seem to wobble around a bit before stabilizing. Normally I give it a second or two. Is it supposed to be instantaneous?
I am not sure on VR but on the Canon IS it is almost instantaneous
__________________
http://www.photosbymorgan2.com -Canon 1DS Mark II, Canon 1D Mark II, Lenses, studio equipment and many antique cameras
photosbymorgan2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2005   #7
Guanaco
 
Posts: 424
CamelKarma: 32
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: IS/VR in lens vs body

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavel
I wonder about that too. I find the canon is needs to settle in but it's so fast ( 1/4 sec?) that it isn't any kind of factor if ou anticipate at all. I found the IS of limited value in most of what I shoot so I sold both lenses. I wouldn't mind having it in body, since it's there for when you may need it but don't think I would pay for it extra as most of my use results in pictures most like the last one you've put up for illustration. My moto is f 2.8 or bust ( bust the bank that is )
You don't sometimes find shallow DOF a problem running wide open all the time?

For my d70 I think Nikon has a 50mmf1.4 prime but I wonder if you can get anything in focus at f1.4?

Is it true that low F lenses can autofocus more reliably (in addition to providing a brighter viewfinder and a lighter wallet!)
__________________
Oregon, USA<br />Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut.
hartcons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2005   #8
Dromedary
 
Posts: 1,147
CamelKarma: 34
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: IS/VR in lens vs body

Quote:
Originally Posted by hartcons
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavel
I wonder about that too.* I find the canon is needs to settle in but it's so fast ( 1/4 sec?) that it isn't any kind of factor if ou anticipate at all.* I found the IS of limited value in most of what I shoot so I sold both lenses.* I wouldn't mind having it in body, since it's there for when you may need it but don't think I would pay for it extra as most of my use results in pictures most like the last one you've put up for illustration.* My moto is f 2.8 or bust ( bust the bank that is )
You don't sometimes find shallow DOF a problem running wide open all the time?

For my d70 I think Nikon has a 50mmf1.4 prime but I wonder if you can get anything in focus at f1.4?

Is it true that low F lenses can autofocus more reliably (in addition to providing a brighter viewfinder and a lighter wallet!)
Nikon's 50mm f/1.4 is a fine lens. I had two copies, however, and one was softer than the second.
AlbertP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2005   #9
Vicuna
 
Posts: 140
CamelKarma: 16
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: IS/VR in lens vs body

I must admit I've found IS pretty addictive after years of using old manual focus lenses on my film SLR. I bought the Canon 28-135 IS lens to go on my 350D and was fairly stunned to have sharp pictures at 1/8 of a second at 90mm (effectively 150mm given the 1.6 crop factor). The IS does take a moment to kick in, but realistically it's almost always stable by the time the autofocus has finished - it might be more noticeable with a better lens, as apparently the 28-135 isn't particularly quick at AF (although I'm very happy with the image quality).

I think the idea of in camera stabilisation is great, even though intuitively I suspect it has to be less efficient at longer focal lengths (a shift at a shorter focal length will move the image across the imaging plane far less than the same movement at longer focal lengths). Given the heavy discounting I've seen on the KM image stabilised bodies in the last month or two, I'd be seriously considering them if I was purchasing now, but four months ago I could pick up the 350D and 28-135 for less than the cost of the Minolta body only, and really couldn't justify the extra cost.


__________________
Members don't see ads in threads. Register for your free account today and become a member of PhotoCamel to open up the site's many benefits and features.
timjon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

« PhotoCamel - Your Friendly Photography Forum > PhotoCamel Lounge > Photography Talk »


Share this topic:

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Best lens for full body portrait work? jimD50 Nikon 8 12-14-2006 10:57 PM
ordered the D200 body, now for the lens... jhnyc Nikon 54 05-30-2006 10:51 PM
Full body Portrait lens kg112660 Nikon 9 02-14-2006 05:03 PM
Which lens for N70 body & CF-51 case Lunaray Nikon 2 09-20-2005 02:12 PM