Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 16, 2008, 10:16 AM   #21
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

I'm not buying it.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2008, 10:57 AM   #22
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

TCAV,

NHL's and my comments are geared toward how to allocate your money. His points illustrate how flash improves a photo. As for 'out of range' - with a powerful flash and better beamer that range is quite a bit. So the point is: instead of spending the $$$ on IS, spending it on flash and other gear could get you better shots. If you can afford both then great. But if you cant, there are a lot of instances where tools other than IS are more beneficial.

Again I'm not saying IS is bad. I'm just saying you should invest in the right tools for the job. Sometimes that's IS but many times it isn't and people mistakenly use IS when other tools could provide better results.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2008, 11:34 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

JohnG wrote:
Quote:
NHL's and my comments are geared toward how to allocate your money. His points illustrate how flash improves a photo. As for 'out of range' - with a powerful flash and better beamer that range is quite a bit. So the point is: instead of spending the $$$ on IS, spending it on flash and other gear could get you better shots. If you can afford both then great. But if you cant, there are a lot of instances where tools other than IS are more beneficial.

Again I'm not saying IS is bad. I'm just saying you should invest in the right tools for the job. Sometimes that's IS but many times it isn't and people mistakenly use IS when other tools could provide better results.
I agree with your comments, but when ...

DarkDTSHD wrote:
Quote:
Better to have VR than not.
... he was talking about the Nikkor VR 70-200, and NHL tried to list reasons why that wasnot true. It was those reasons I took issuewith, within the context of the Nikkor VR 70-200.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2008, 12:31 PM   #24
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

TCav wrote:
Quote:
... he was talking about the Nikkor VR 70-200, and NHL tried to list reasons why that wasnot true. It was those reasons I took issuewith, within the context of the Nikkor VR 70-200.
I think if you re-read his post he is saying the same thing I am: flash was more beneficial than VR. Its not that VR makes the shot worse - it's that it isn't enough. So if you can only afford one, the flash gives you better results than VR. VR with a flash is fine but if choosing between the two then the flash gives better results.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2008, 2:16 PM   #25
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

TCav wrote:
Quote:
That's would be a result of selecting an inappropriate metering mode, and has nothing to do with whether image stabilization is in use or not.
Are you suggesting that the metering should be on the subject and then totally blow out the background?
-> Notice the black tail and black spots on the image of the bird which are darker than the foliages in the back - The background would have been totally blown out if VR was used to expose for the subject... Remember this scene is illuminated from behind and no light is coming from the front where the camera is located!

IMO people who rely on VR only and do not try to understand basic lighting are in for some enlightment... If this is the case then tall he studio photographers in us should turn our lights off and retire with a VR lens then! :lol::-):G
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2008, 3:57 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:
The background would have been totally blown out if VR was used to expose for the subject...
VR does not affect exposure.

If you were using spot metering mode, and the spot were on the bird,then the bird would be correctly exposed. If you were using a wider area metering mode, then the background would be blown and the bird would be underexposed (a silhouette.) Neither would be affected one way or the other by whether image stabilization was used or not.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2008, 5:48 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

JimC wrote:
Quote:
I'm not buying it.
I thought about it some more, and realized that the optical image stabilization systemalways projects a stabilized image out the back of the lens, so it doesn't matter whether there's a TC or tube attached.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2008, 9:57 PM   #28
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

TCav wrote:
Quote:
VR does not affect exposure.
I couldn't agree more!



Quote:
If you were using spot metering mode, and the spot were on the bird, then the bird would be correctly exposed. If you were using a wider area metering mode, then the background would be blown and the bird would be underexposed (a silhouette.) Neither would be affected one way or the other by whether image stabilization was used or not.
I'm afraid you still don't get it:
Do we agree that the background and the foreground subject are at two different exposure values and exposing for one will compromise the other?

1."If you were using a wider area metering mode, then the background would be blown and the bird would be underexposed (a silhouette.)"
Absolutely NOT in a wider area mode the background would have been exposed properly but the bird would have been underexposed.

2. If the spot were on the bird the exposure would be correct on the bird, but a lower value EV (where VR will have some merit), but the background would have been overexposed instead (The bird tail foreground is pure black while the darker background foliage is dark green!)

3. If you did check my bird picture the metering was already set on partial (i.e. 8mm center circle for a 1DMrkII) what the flash did was to bring the EV value of the bird up so that the foreground subject is now balanced with its background such that the entire image is now exposed properly

-> Using VR alone (i.e. shoot a lower EV without flash to capture the bird at its correct exposure) would never have work (You can only exposed for one or the other but not both)! - May be someone else can explain this better than me...
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2008, 10:27 PM   #29
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

But, they're not mutually exclusive.

If you wanted to use a flash for fill, you could do that with or without a stabilization system in the body or lens on, and still enjoy the benefits of stablization if your shutter speeds were too slow to prevent blur from camera shake if you choose to use it.

If you're using a flash for fill in daylight, your still going to have some ambient light exposure (so, it's not going to freeze the action unless you're using settings that would give you a very dark exposure without a flash).

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2008, 10:43 PM   #30
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

In fairness, you may be able to use slightly faster shutter speeds with a flash for fill, depending on the exact conditions.

Most of these debates I see on stabilization seem to be an either/or kind of thing, when they can compliment each other in some conditions.

Arguing that stablization is bad or is a crutch, is like arguing that a tripod is bad or is a crutch. ;-) The tripod may be more effective in some conditions (depending on how slow your want to go, or if your lenses are heavy enough to need one to help out).

But, then again, you may not want to drag one along all the time either. Ditto for an external flash, brighter lenses, etc., etc.

Having stablization is more convenient in some conditions, just like having a variety of lenses can be more convenient (for example, smaller and lighter lenses for walk around use, versus brighter and heavier lenses with higher quality that may have a more limiting focal range.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:44 PM.