VR eat IS?

[Dan Cattermole]

I.S and still is the 'image stabilising' system that is used in the E volt series for Olympus, especially the only continued model the E-5. There are plenty of E series models that I could spend the next sentence naming.... But I won't patronise you intelligent lot.

Now I'm in possession of the nikon VR.

I've only got one thing to say about this...... Sugar Honey Ice Tea! It's fudgcaking immense!!!!!
Even my hand shakey joe farther in law can hang upside down in a tree mid earthquake and still whoop out top shot worthy to call it a picture!

It really is good, I've probably take about 200 shots so far with it my new D7000 and still have my ronny majonica jumping like a jack rabbit for more commando (yet static) results.

Now, for anyone who has held, owned, used, abused, loved, or hated a Nikon, then maybe your all thinking 'Dan, seriously, what are you on about??!!'

Well, I've been so attached to my beloved Oly, that I failed to see what other potential creations of excellence there is out there in the existence of cameras. DSLR's especially.

Hands down for the canon guys, I picked up one up.
A/some good friend(s) of mine all own canons, and they are lovely to use. But I think that the novelty has slightly worn off if you know what I mean.....

Anyway, I'm talking about the VR......
One word only....…………

TOP!

 

[Hamish Gill]

Haha Dan ... It gets better than that lens too! http://www.realphotographersforum.c...est-vibration-reduction-i-have-ever-seen.html

 

[Darren Bradley]

Welcome to 2013, Dan!

I used to own a Nikon D90, and remember how impressed I was with the VR on the lenses I had then, too. Blown away, even. So I know exactly what you mean.

While you're on the subject (and since you mentioned Canon), the IS on the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L II IS is just scary good - the best I've ever seen. It's even a bit disorienting and makes me feel a bit seasick, because it holds a shot still even when I'm visibly moving.

 

[Hamish Gill]

The next feature I want it "SVR" or "subject vibration reduction" ... As I understand it they are adding further non-visible light output (around 910nm I think) to the focus assist lamp. It is supposed to have some sort of temporary calming effect on the subject. Apparently they are having issues getting the output level right though... It either only works when shooting people face on, or if they turn it up high enough for it to work with people side on, face on people end up getting dizzy. There is a story of a woman in Japan who fell over and knocked her head ... Fortunately she was alright... But it happened when he was saying her vows on her wedding day. The photographer had been told not to take photos. He was even doing ok with the silent shutter switched on. But when it came to testing the "SVR", disaster struck!

 

[Darren Bradley]

I love it! A human version of the "deer in headlights" look!

 

[Hamish Gill]

Funnily enough, the original experiments were in fact within the visible spectrum and did cause the stunned look. A photographer in Japan noticed that the preflash for red eye removal was shocking people so much they were ending up slightly sharper in photos even when the main flash didn't fire (te stpry goes that his nikon sb900 had some sort of over heatong problem so pften wouldnt fire the main flash) For some time they thought it was the bright light itself that was having the effect, but with further experimentation they discovered if they removed the visible light element it still had an effect on the subject. Flashguns are of course geared up to put out light well beyond the visible spectrum as slaves are triggered by IR.
once they isolated it to IR it was just a case of finding the right frequancy and intensity. Apparently at one stage they thought the whole concept was dead in the water as without the visible light they initially turned the intercity right up. The test subjects weren't prone to feeling dizzy, but just closing their eyes for a second ... Less than ideal in photography really

 

[Pete Askew]

Photos without blurry bits - it'll never catch on!

 

[Darren Turner]

Love your text DD, very comically written.........!

The VR on the 18-105mm is pretty good..........not quite as good as my old Canon 70-200mm F2.8 like Darren B mentions, saying that there is about £1600 in price difference between these 2 lens, but the VR on the nikon lens certainly does work and very well.

I have VR on my Nikon 70-300 and that has a funny mode that i think claims to stabilize a picture via the lens even when your moving along say on a boat or train or similar............cant wait to see how that works

welcome to the modern day world of the DSLR DD

Daz

 

[Hamish Gill]

Well I find my self entertaining ...