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


wmayeo

New Member
Feb 11, 2008
1,571
0
0
Singapore
#1
Source:
https://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com...sion/L3RpbWUvMTMxMDM4MzY2Mi9zaWQvUlV6Y3ZJeWs=

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.
 

UncleFai

Senior Member
Mar 10, 2010
4,454
39
48
Singapore
#2
Source:
https://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com...sion/L3RpbWUvMTMxMDM4MzY2Mi9zaWQvUlV6Y3ZJeWs=

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.
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,662
69
48
lil red dot
#3
Actually some points are true la. Different focal lengths will affect camera shake differently.

And yes in lens vr is definitely more ex.
 

Nov 10, 2010
174
0
16
#5
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...
 

devilry

New Member
Feb 16, 2006
986
3
0
#6
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.
 

UncleFai

Senior Member
Mar 10, 2010
4,454
39
48
Singapore
#7
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?
 

devilry

New Member
Feb 16, 2006
986
3
0
#8
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.
 

UncleFai

Senior Member
Mar 10, 2010
4,454
39
48
Singapore
#9
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?
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,662
69
48
lil red dot
#10
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.
 

r0n1n

Senior Member
Mar 9, 2009
815
2
18
Wild Wild West
#11
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.
 

chiangkxv

Senior Member
Jul 5, 2008
1,798
22
38
33
Tiong Bahru
www.flickr.com
#12
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
 

Apr 7, 2010
2,560
0
0
Southern Enclave
#14
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...
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#15
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).
 

chiangkxv

Senior Member
Jul 5, 2008
1,798
22
38
33
Tiong Bahru
www.flickr.com
#16
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)

:D still can save $30 for a taxi ride home :bsmilie: 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.
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#17
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)

:D still can save $30 for a taxi ride home :bsmilie: 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.
 

chanjyj

New Member
Apr 8, 2007
1,909
0
0
#18
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:

wmayeo

New Member
Feb 11, 2008
1,571
0
0
Singapore
#19
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.
 

Apr 7, 2010
2,560
0
0
Southern Enclave
#20
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)

:D still can save $30 for a taxi ride home :bsmilie: 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:
Top Bottom