Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 30

Thread: Why is 'in-lens' VR superior to 'in-camera' VR?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,571

    Default Why is 'in-lens' VR superior to 'in-camera' VR?

    Source:
    https://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/...UlV6Y3ZJeWs%3D

    1. Corrected finder image makes photo composition easy.
    Because camera movement is compensated within the lens in use, you can see a clear finder image. This makes it easier to capture your subject in the focus frame and confirm composition. With a camera that corrects image blur inside the camera body, the image in the finder remains blurred.

    2. Each lens is optimally tuned to achieve reliable correction.
    Unlike cameras that only provide an internal image-blur function, every lens is optimised. As a result, you can shoot at shutter speeds up to three or four stops slower than would otherwise be possible.

    3. Image information captured by the AF and metering sensors is corrected with in-lens VR.
    This is a major difference from the in-camera VR. The result is faster and more accurate autofocusing and exposure metering.

    4. Patterns of image blur are not the same with all lenses.
    Image blur caused by camera movement differs with each lens used. This phenomenon is more noticeable when you use a lens with a longer focal length. So each lens should be finely tuned.

  2. #2
    Senior Member UncleFai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,422

    Default Re: Why is 'in-lens' VR superior to 'in-camera' VR?

    Quote Originally Posted by wmayeo View Post
    Source:
    https://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/...UlV6Y3ZJeWs%3D

    1. Corrected finder image makes photo composition easy.
    Because camera movement is compensated within the lens in use, you can see a clear finder image. This makes it easier to capture your subject in the focus frame and confirm composition. With a camera that corrects image blur inside the camera body, the image in the finder remains blurred.

    2. Each lens is optimally tuned to achieve reliable correction.
    Unlike cameras that only provide an internal image-blur function, every lens is optimised. As a result, you can shoot at shutter speeds up to three or four stops slower than would otherwise be possible.

    3. Image information captured by the AF and metering sensors is corrected with in-lens VR.
    This is a major difference from the in-camera VR. The result is faster and more accurate autofocusing and exposure metering.

    4. Patterns of image blur are not the same with all lenses.
    Image blur caused by camera movement differs with each lens used. This phenomenon is more noticeable when you use a lens with a longer focal length. So each lens should be finely tuned.
    The REAL reason: they can sell more types of lenses and charge you more for the VR lenses.

  3. #3
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Actually some points are true la. Different focal lengths will affect camera shake differently.

    And yes in lens vr is definitely more ex.

  4. #4
    Member Irvine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    North? South? East? West?
    Posts
    1,037

    Default Re: Why is 'in-lens' VR superior to 'in-camera' VR?

    Quote Originally Posted by UncleFai View Post
    The REAL reason: they can sell more types of lenses and charge you more for the VR lenses.
    lol yup. i also got this feeling that the actual reason may be the one as u stated.
    Google is your friend. Make use of it.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Why is 'in-lens' VR superior to 'in-camera' VR?

    Quote Originally Posted by Irvine View Post
    lol yup. i also got this feeling that the actual reason may be the one as u stated.
    Well, its a Nikkor, so pricing it higher and having VR in the lens to deliver marginally better performance makes sense...

  6. #6

    Default Re: Why is 'in-lens' VR superior to 'in-camera' VR?

    Quote Originally Posted by daredevil123 View Post
    Actually some points are true la. Different focal lengths will affect camera shake differently.

    And yes in lens vr is definitely more ex.
    not exactly, other manufacturers (other than nikon and canon) did not put IS/VR in their lens, but yet they charged higher than nikon and canon's IS/VR version!

    Saying that in lens vr is more ex doesnt hold any water at all.

    just look at the sony 70-200 f2.8 pricing, and this will explain everything.

  7. #7
    Senior Member UncleFai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,422

    Default Re: Why is 'in-lens' VR superior to 'in-camera' VR?

    Quote Originally Posted by devilry View Post
    not exactly, other manufacturers (other than nikon and canon) did not put IS/VR in their lens, but yet they charged higher than nikon and canon's IS/VR version!

    Saying that in lens vr is more ex doesnt hold any water at all.

    just look at the sony 70-200 f2.8 pricing, and this will explain everything.
    Within the same brand lah... across brand different mar... you pay more for a light bulb on a BMW than a Chery QQ you know?

  8. #8

    Default Re: Why is 'in-lens' VR superior to 'in-camera' VR?

    Quote Originally Posted by UncleFai View Post
    Within the same brand lah... across brand different mar... you pay more for a light bulb on a BMW than a Chery QQ you know?
    when sony introduce the inbody VR/IS, they claim that doing this can help the sony consumers save more money as compared to using the competitors canon/nikon vr/is lenses. So in a way, sony claimed that choosing sony is gona save u more money on lenses compared to using canon/nikon, which turns out totally not to be the case at all.

  9. #9
    Senior Member UncleFai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,422

    Default Re: Why is 'in-lens' VR superior to 'in-camera' VR?

    Quote Originally Posted by devilry View Post
    when sony introduce the inbody VR/IS, they claim that doing this can help the sony consumers save more money as compared to using the competitors canon/nikon vr/is lenses. So in a way, sony claimed that choosing sony is gona save u more money on lenses compared to using canon/nikon, which turns out totally not to be the case at all.
    A typical case of one company hyping their product and screwing those who are trapped into their products. You think the long term viability of SMRT/SBS (both making millions of profit) threatened if they don't get the current hike approved?

  10. #10
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Why is 'in-lens' VR superior to 'in-camera' VR?

    Quote Originally Posted by devilry View Post
    not exactly, other manufacturers (other than nikon and canon) did not put IS/VR in their lens, but yet they charged higher than nikon and canon's IS/VR version!

    Saying that in lens vr is more ex doesnt hold any water at all.

    just look at the sony 70-200 f2.8 pricing, and this will explain everything.
    Generally speaking that is. But does not apply to all lenses. Especially 3rd party lenses.

  11. #11
    Member r0n1n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wild Wild West
    Posts
    799

    Default Re: Why is 'in-lens' VR superior to 'in-camera' VR?

    Quote Originally Posted by devilry View Post
    when sony introduce the inbody VR/IS, they claim that doing this can help the sony consumers save more money as compared to using the competitors canon/nikon vr/is lenses. So in a way, sony claimed that choosing sony is gona save u more money on lenses compared to using canon/nikon, which turns out totally not to be the case at all.
    is it? I thought Olympus pioneered the in-camera IS.
    I shoot with my A7II . I shoot with my Kalashnikov AEG. I just love shooting ;)

  12. #12

    Default Re: Why is 'in-lens' VR superior to 'in-camera' VR?

    Quote Originally Posted by devilry View Post
    when sony introduce the inbody VR/IS, they claim that doing this can help the sony consumers save more money as compared to using the competitors canon/nikon vr/is lenses. So in a way, sony claimed that choosing sony is gona save u more money on lenses compared to using canon/nikon, which turns out totally not to be the case at all.
    Hmmm.. My research proves otherwise..

    Sony SAL 70200G: $3299 RRP
    NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II : $3699 RRP
    EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM : $3999 RRP
    EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM: $3599 RRP

    SAL18200: $700
    NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II: $1399
    EF-S18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS: $1299

  13. #13

    Default Re: Why is 'in-lens' VR superior to 'in-camera' VR?

    I like the in body VR/IS in my OLY Pens.....Lets me use all my non VR and MF Nikon glass with a stp or 2 advantage over some of my other rigs....

    Cheers

  14. #14
    New Member kriegsketten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern Enclave
    Posts
    2,560

    Default Re: Why is 'in-lens' VR superior to 'in-camera' VR?

    Quote Originally Posted by chiangkxv View Post
    Hmmm.. My research proves otherwise..

    Sony SAL 70200G: $3299 RRP
    NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II : $3699 RRP
    EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM : $3999 RRP
    EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM: $3599 RRP

    SAL18200: $700
    NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II: $1399
    EF-S18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS: $1299
    My apologies, what was Sony SAL 70200G price before the Tsunamic-shake-up? I recalled Nikkor 70-200mm VRII selling at $3030 before the disaster struck. Prices went straight up for most of Canon and Nikon range. Sony probably stuck to the old pricing...
    Myflickr | Zoom in for the KILL!

  15. #15
    Senior Member ZerocoolAstra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    rainy Singapore
    Posts
    9,523

    Default Re: Why is 'in-lens' VR superior to 'in-camera' VR?

    Quote Originally Posted by chiangkxv View Post
    Hmmm.. My research proves otherwise..

    Sony SAL 70200G: $3299 RRP
    NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II : $3699 RRP
    EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM : $3999 RRP
    EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM: $3599 RRP

    SAL18200: $700
    NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II: $1399
    EF-S18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS: $1299
    Nikon's RRPs are quite scary. Best to compare street prices (the prices that one would actually pay to buy such a lens).
    Exploring! :)

  16. #16

    Default Re: Why is 'in-lens' VR superior to 'in-camera' VR?

    Quote Originally Posted by ZerocoolAstra View Post
    Nikon's RRPs are quite scary. Best to compare street prices (the prices that one would actually pay to buy such a lens).
    Lets look at street price then:

    Sony SAL 70200G: $2999 (e-quote)
    NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II : $3030(CS price guide)
    EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM : $3350 (CS price guide)

    still can save $30 for a taxi ride home Sony price are more quite competitive.

    Not trying to prove anything, just wanna clear some misconception that Sony lens (not inclusive of Zeiss) are more expensive.

  17. #17
    Senior Member ZerocoolAstra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    rainy Singapore
    Posts
    9,523

    Default Re: Why is 'in-lens' VR superior to 'in-camera' VR?

    Quote Originally Posted by chiangkxv View Post
    Lets look at street price then:

    Sony SAL 70200G: $2999 (e-quote)
    NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II : $3030(CS price guide)
    EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM : $3350 (CS price guide)

    still can save $30 for a taxi ride home Sony price are more quite competitive.

    Not trying to prove anything, just wanna clear some misconception that Sony lens (not inclusive of Zeiss) are more expensive.
    ok thanks for the update

    For $30 I shall maintain my brand 'loyalty' then... Having seen how in-lens VR works with the telephoto lenses, I am convinced it performs better. However for the 'typical' (I use this term with much caution... hehe) focal ranges that a hobbyist shoots at, probably either form of stabilisation works equally well.
    Exploring! :)

  18. #18

    Default Re: Why is 'in-lens' VR superior to 'in-camera' VR?

    Quote Originally Posted by Irvine View Post
    lol yup. i also got this feeling that the actual reason may be the one as u stated.
    Disagree.

    In-lens VR allows you to see the image already stabilised before you shoot. In-body VR doesn't. This is particularly important for telephotos.

    And the point about VR affecting bokeh is certainly true, but you may not realise it for UWA/normal lenses unless your eye is discerning so how whether this is worth the premium you are paying is another issue. For telephotos, this is definitely an advantage.
    Last edited by chanjyj; 14th July 2011 at 05:10 PM.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,571

    Default Re: Why is 'in-lens' VR superior to 'in-camera' VR?

    The VR system works if you shoot at low shutter speed. It's a tech to assist hand held ability to shoot w/o shaky hands & at more comfort.

    And when you shoot anything that's fast and you want to freeze the action, VR is not needed.

    Otherwise you need lots of shooting experience & master the technique to train yourself to hand held at low shutter speed.

    Currently I own one lens with VR that is 16-85mm. After more than one year of photography, I started to shoot lesser with VR on. I try to make conscious effort to turn off the VR when I can get sufficient shutter speed to shoot comfortably.

  20. #20
    New Member kriegsketten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern Enclave
    Posts
    2,560

    Default Re: Why is 'in-lens' VR superior to 'in-camera' VR?

    Quote Originally Posted by chiangkxv View Post
    Lets look at street price then:

    Sony SAL 70200G: $2999 (e-quote)
    NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II : $3030(CS price guide)
    EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM : $3350 (CS price guide)

    still can save $30 for a taxi ride home Sony price are more quite competitive.

    Not trying to prove anything, just wanna clear some misconception that Sony lens (not inclusive of Zeiss) are more expensive.
    Urm it means VR option is just 30 bucks more than without? Man, that's a bargain already! Just checked, CS price for Sony's unit is 3050 on Feb 2011...

    Sorry, I can't hep it but for an approx. 3-grand lens, Sony saved you just $30 by not including a complex VR/IS system is hardly any where being competitive... To be fair, one should just compare AF-S 80-200mm with Sony's 70200G... both without in-lens VR systems implemented. I don't know what's Canon's Equivalent, but I'm sure there has to be one EF-70-200mm version (without the IS) of the same class?
    Last edited by kriegsketten; 17th July 2011 at 05:09 PM.
    Myflickr | Zoom in for the KILL!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •