Forums
New posts
Articles
Product Reviews
Policies
FAQ
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Digital Lifestyle
Images, Graphic Design, and Digital Photography
Is fast glass with image stabalizing redundant?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Doug b" data-source="post: 1142328" data-attributes="member: 59143"><p>Hold on a minute though Village Idiot... Unless I'm missing something, he's looking for advice on shooting in a studio setup. Yes, of course everything you've said pertaining to stopping down and shooting at a very slow shutter speed such as 1/15th with VR on is true. Of course you CAN get a decent shot which isn't too blurry, but if we're talking about a professional shot which needs to be blown up, you're going to see the difference between <strong>having to</strong> use VR because of poor lighting and not having to use VR because good studio lighting is available. </p><p></p><p>Non of this is hypothetical, it's true to the situation. So while what you're saying is true, it might be misleading for a particular scenario. No one doing a professional shoot in a studio <strong>isn't</strong> using proper lighting, and thus, VR IS redundant, stopped down or not. </p><p></p><p>If we're talking about recreational/hobbyist shots outside at night time, then that's a different story. And yes, I do tend to shoot wide open with my 1.8 lenses at night, (which don't have VR) until that, plus my highest ISO setting just aren't cutting it anymore, which at that point, is where the tripod comes in. But again, you also have to consider the scene and scenario. But you can imagine those things and know what I'm saying. </p><p></p><p>As far as what you're saying about using VR on a tripod goes, I'm a Nikon guy, and I don't know of any Nikor lenses which behave as such, if Canon is different in this respect, my pardons. I personally still wouldn't trust such a mechanism in the field. If I'm relying on whether or not the lens knows what still is or not, I'd rather not risk it, but that's just me. Otherwise, and in general VR on a tripod make zero sense and does indeed falt the outcome of the shot rather than enhance it. But you know that. </p><p></p><p>Crimson: Know your shooting environment. Get a feel for what you will need before hand. Know what kind of lighting will be available. Lighting is EVERYTHING. It's the fundamental asset to proper exposure. You can't know what to do with ISO, aperture or shutter speed without knowing where you stand with lighting. </p><p></p><p>So sure, go get a nice 2.8 VR lens. The two things in and of themselves are NOT redundant <strong>depending upon the situation</strong>, but I firmly stand by what I said about being in a studio with proper lighting. </p><p></p><p>Doug</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Doug b, post: 1142328, member: 59143"] Hold on a minute though Village Idiot... Unless I'm missing something, he's looking for advice on shooting in a studio setup. Yes, of course everything you've said pertaining to stopping down and shooting at a very slow shutter speed such as 1/15th with VR on is true. Of course you CAN get a decent shot which isn't too blurry, but if we're talking about a professional shot which needs to be blown up, you're going to see the difference between [B]having to[/B] use VR because of poor lighting and not having to use VR because good studio lighting is available. Non of this is hypothetical, it's true to the situation. So while what you're saying is true, it might be misleading for a particular scenario. No one doing a professional shoot in a studio [B]isn't[/B] using proper lighting, and thus, VR IS redundant, stopped down or not. If we're talking about recreational/hobbyist shots outside at night time, then that's a different story. And yes, I do tend to shoot wide open with my 1.8 lenses at night, (which don't have VR) until that, plus my highest ISO setting just aren't cutting it anymore, which at that point, is where the tripod comes in. But again, you also have to consider the scene and scenario. But you can imagine those things and know what I'm saying. As far as what you're saying about using VR on a tripod goes, I'm a Nikon guy, and I don't know of any Nikor lenses which behave as such, if Canon is different in this respect, my pardons. I personally still wouldn't trust such a mechanism in the field. If I'm relying on whether or not the lens knows what still is or not, I'd rather not risk it, but that's just me. Otherwise, and in general VR on a tripod make zero sense and does indeed falt the outcome of the shot rather than enhance it. But you know that. Crimson: Know your shooting environment. Get a feel for what you will need before hand. Know what kind of lighting will be available. Lighting is EVERYTHING. It's the fundamental asset to proper exposure. You can't know what to do with ISO, aperture or shutter speed without knowing where you stand with lighting. So sure, go get a nice 2.8 VR lens. The two things in and of themselves are NOT redundant [B]depending upon the situation[/B], but I firmly stand by what I said about being in a studio with proper lighting. Doug [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Digital Lifestyle
Images, Graphic Design, and Digital Photography
Is fast glass with image stabalizing redundant?
Top