Is VR obsolete?

[petermarrek]

Recently purchased a nikon 300mm 2.8 for use on a D3x. With the relatively low noise the camera produces, I find that I can just dial up the ASA and get useable shutter speeds in almost any light that's reasonable. The little bit of noise produced is easily eliminated and sharp images are great.

[PeterAit]

Recently purchased a nikon 300mm 2.8 for use on a D3x. With the relatively low noise the camera produces, I find that I can just dial up the ASA and get useable shutter speeds in almost any light that's reasonable. The little bit of noise produced is easily eliminated and sharp images are great.

VR redefines what is "reasonable" in terms of lighting.

[stamper]

VR redefines what is "reasonable" in terms of lighting.

I think that it is beneficial to have both options. Using my Nikkor 16-85 lens I have hand held it at 1/15 second with the VR on and the image with flowing water was smoothed out and imo the rocks along side the water were sharp. Nikon claim four stops of light in the VR but if you calculate three to be on the safe side compared to the focal length I think it works?

[walter.sk]

Recently purchased a nikon 300mm 2.8 for use on a D3x. With the relatively low noise the camera produces, I find that I can just dial up the ASA and get useable shutter speeds in almost any light that's reasonable. The little bit of noise produced is easily eliminated and sharp images are great.

It depends on what resuts you want.  High shutter speeds may reduce camera movement, but also freeze motion.  If you want a blurred effect obtainable with a slow shutterspeed, such as when shooting moving water or some sports (e.g. a blurred tennis racket) you would want image stabilization or a tripod.

Also, if you want great depth of field (f/11, f/16) in anything but bright light you'll probably need slower shutter speeds even at higher ISO's, and image stabilization becomes desirable.  

I also question the term "any light that's reasonable."  I find all light reasonable depending on the effect I want.  After using image stabilization for the last 10 years, I would not leave home without it.

[madmanchan]

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

[Rob C]

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

An interesting comment, and it does sort of make one wonder how the sports guys got on prior to VR and also prior to AF! Perhaps that's what professionalism used to mean.

Rob C

[stamper]

An interesting comment, and it does sort of make one wonder how the sports guys got on prior to VR and also prior to AF! Perhaps that's what professionalism used to mean.

Rob C

They done the best they could with limited equipment?

[Rob C]

They done the best they could with limited equipment?

Possibly, but the point remains that they still managed to produce some crackers!

Rob C

[BJL]

Recently purchased a nikon 300mm 2.8 for use on a D3x. With the relatively low noise the camera produces, I find that I can just dial up the ASA and get useable shutter speeds in almost any light that's reasonable.

VR helps greatly with another sort of "light": getting the job done with far lighter and less expensive lenses than that 300/2.8 (and lighter, less expensive bodies than that D3x). Also, as others have said, VR allows more DOF when high shutter speed is not needed, by getting the shot with a smaller aperture and longer exposure time than the brute force approach of "big glass and big silicon".

[BernardLanguillier]

Recently purchased a nikon 300mm 2.8 for use on a D3x. With the relatively low noise the camera produces, I find that I can just dial up the ASA and get useable shutter speeds in almost any light that's reasonable. The little bit of noise produced is easily eliminated and sharp images are great.

As often Thom Hogan writes it better than anybody else:

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

Cheers,
Bernard

[alanscape]

I might be my age but out of sheer habit I note the focal length/shutter speed relationship even though my lenses have VR which I do find useful (this bit's obvious) when I need it. It's a crazy attitude but I still prefer to shoot at 100-200 ISO, (this comes from years ago when 800 ISO fim seemed a miracle when FUJI released it) it's just a little ingrained and I must try high ISOs but for my work, which is mainly static subjects, the only thing that moves is me!
Naturally, VR is worse than obsolete when activated if you're tripod shooting but it's amazing how many people leave it turned on.

[stamper]

Possibly, but the point remains that they still managed to produce some crackers!

Rob C

But how much better and easier would these crackers be with modern equipment? I think some people are a little masochistic to persevere with outdated equipment? Then again they get great pleasure from using it. Horses for courses?

[walter.sk]

But how much better and easier would these crackers be with modern equipment? I think some people are a little masochistic to persevere with outdated equipment? Then again they get great pleasure from using it. Horses for courses?

There are many examples of current working pros who have roots in the film days, before AF and AE, who have ventured into the use of contemporary film and digital equipment who say that good AF can outperform their manual focus abilities, and that AE, or even the dreaded "P" setting, can get them shots under certain circumstances that sometimes saves the day.  The important thing is having the expert knowledge of the camera and techniques and knowing when to rely on manual settings vs auto or semi-auto settings.