New 50mm Lens From Nikon

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Manzoorul Hassan, Jan 17, 2008.

  1. Isn't that Sony FF sensor technology?
    Scott in Florida, Jan 26, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. Manzoorul  Hassan

    RichA Guest

    You're shooting a night scene. Even though you're using a 50mm f1.4,
    it isn't allowing a fast enough shutter speed to keep the shot steady.
    VR here helps. What confuses people is that when you have VR on a
    lens of 50mm or less, the shutter speeds you are going to be at won't
    "freeze" the motion of people walking, etc. That's not the point, it
    is simply to get rid of body shake, nothing more. So if the scene is
    relatively static, then being able to use a shutter speed of 1/15th
    second will be helpful if it is what it takes to get the shot.
    RichA, Jan 26, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. Manzoorul  Hassan

    RichA Guest

    In-lens VR has to go the way of the dinosaurs. It's too easy though
    for mfgs like Canon to up lens prices 50% just by adding it. They
    won't lose such a cash-cow readily. The cameras using in-body I.S.
    are a much better solution. Plus, no optical degradation because
    there are no extra, useless optical elements.
    RichA, Jan 26, 2008
  4. RichA wrote:
    You are keeping up your reputation with this post.

    - in-body IS does nothing to stabilise the image in the viewfinder or on
    the focus and exposure sensors. In-lens IS provides significant benefit
    for the photographer.

    - just because some manufacturers charge a large mark-up, not all do.
    Nikon have some excellent performers with IS at competitive prices.

    - it is reported that in body IS does not perform as well as in-lens IS.

    - there may be no need for any extra optical elements.

    I accept that in-body gives people with older lenses a chance to get more
    life out of them, but I firmly believe that in-lens IS gives the most
    benefit for the photographer.

    David J Taylor, Jan 26, 2008
  5. "David J Taylor"
    I just bought a Nikon 55-200 VR for under $200, which seems like a
    pretty good price. However, VR really only seems to apply under low
    light situations, and I don't have a lot of those. Still they do occur
    and it is easier to carry round than a tripod.
    Robert Peirce, Jan 26, 2008
  6. Nope! It is in the D300, though.

    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 26, 2008
  7. He is only correct to the point that in-camera IS/VR is effective at focal
    lengths of 50mm and wider. For a bulletproof stabilization system you need
    both in-lens and in-camera systems. I would never advocate an in-camera
    IS/VR only solution as the performance dead-zone begins at 150mm and sharply
    drops as the focal length gets longer. For FF cameras in-camera IS/VR the
    performance curve starts its dive at 125mm.

    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 26, 2008
  8. No confusion other than VR not being effective at doing what you just
    described. VR/IS isn't intuitive enough to anticipate the minute movements
    as effectively at these wide angles. You should be able to handhold at
    those speeds. In-camera VR/IS will be more intuitive at WA and offer better
    performance in this situation.

    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 26, 2008
  9. Manzoorul  Hassan

    RichA Guest

    Maybe not now, perhaps. Olympus is talking about 7 stops of gain in
    the next 2-3 years with in-body stabilization. How much more is
    really needed?
    I've got a chance to try both, on the same camera, so I'll see if I
    can tell which if either offers any major benefit.
    RichA, Jan 27, 2008
  10. Manzoorul  Hassan

    RichA Guest

    Do these systems anticipate, or simply react?
    We're talking specific ratios here. If you experience blur while
    holding a 200mm lens while shooting at 1/50th of a second, then you
    are going to see the same kind of blur holding a 35mm lens at 1/8th of
    a second, VR will benefit both. VR does not anticipate anything, it
    responds to movement by providing an opposite movement either with the
    sensor, or an element inside a lens. Until they develop a VR system
    that can "learn" there won't be any anticipation. In a sense, the
    original Zeiss mechanical system in their binoculars "learned" by
    mechanical amplitude matching of the person's body movements after it
    was turned on.
    RichA, Jan 27, 2008
  11. Manzoorul  Hassan

    Mr.T Guest

    Ah, now I see why you have such a grudge against Canon lenses. Time to get
    over it though!

    I held on to mine, and all my Zuiko's, and specifically bought a camera that
    could mount them. That ruled out Nikon.
    But then since I kept all my film bodies as well, there was no desire to get
    rid of good lenses at throw away prices.

    Mr.T, Jan 27, 2008
  12. Now you are catching on. You really need a VR/IS system that can
    "anticipate" movement for it to work effectively at 50mm and wider.
    In-camera VR/IS is the only practical and economical solution for *improved*
    VR/IS at 50mm and wider.

    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 27, 2008
  13. That's just it, I am over it. I even gave Canon a second chance by buying
    the Mk III and ultimately the 500/4L IS. I was extremely pleased with the
    Mk III, the 500/4L, NO. Since I have totally eliminated all "what if I
    bought ____" I'm now very content with my Nikkors and D3.

    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 27, 2008
  14. I think that as soon as you switch on the in-lens IS with, for example, a
    300mm lens on the camera, and see the viewfinder image stablise, you will
    know which you prefer.

    David J Taylor, Jan 27, 2008
  15. I see no specific reasons in the technology or science which mean this
    can only be done in-camera rather than in-lens, although I have no
    doubt that there are significant differences on how well different
    manufacturers have implemented their specific systems.
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 27, 2008
  16. Are these features of the way different manufacturers have implemented
    their systems, or is there something inherent in the difference
    between siting the technology in-camera versus in-lens which produces
    these differences?

    My own guess, based on knowing nothing about how camera makers have
    done it, but knowing something about the kind of technologies and
    science they would have to use, would be that the difference you
    mention is simply an indication that the in-camera implementation in
    question hadn't fully taken into account how much it ought to tune its
    operating parameters as focal lengths changed. It does have to cover a
    wider range than an in-lens system.
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 27, 2008
  17. Manzoorul  Hassan

    Guest Guest

    the problem is that as the focal length of the lens increases, the
    distance the sensor must move to compensate also increases and there's
    a very real limit to what can be done. with stabilization in the lens,
    very little movement is needed and it can be precisely tuned to each
    lens. at shorter focal lengths, sensor based stabilization can work
    quite well, but it's at the longer focal lengths where it is needed the
    most, and that's where sensor based is least effective.
    Guest, Jan 27, 2008
  18. The _distance_ that the sensor has to be moved is the same whatever the
    focal length.

    That's because IS is advertised to give you a fixed number of f stops
    improvement at any focal legnth.

    What has to increase with focal length is speed.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Jan 27, 2008
  19. I don't follow you there. We can agree that (all else being equal) the
    amount of blur from camera shake increases in proportion to focal length,
    right? And that's because there's proportionately more image movement at the
    focal plane. Doesn't that imply that there has to be more sensor movement to
    accommodate the greater image movement, if that's the method of
    stabilization being used?
    So it's advertised, yes. I've always taken that with a grain of salt.
    Speed (of the sensor) too, sure. Because image movement at the focal plane
    moves faster with longer lenses. But the reason it moves faster is that it
    has to cover a greater distance in the same time, so the increase in speed
    is implicit. You couldn't have one without the other.

    Neil Harrington, Jan 27, 2008
  20. Totally incorrect! Your statement would only be true if *ALL* lenses had
    its final element set at exactly the same distance from the sensor plane,
    which they do not!
    Which is bogus and nothing more than marketing hype from both Nikon and
    Canon. And what is this "improvement" you speak of? What scientific
    measure is used to quantify a standard between all manufacturers?
    Yes, that is why you will see all future dSLRs caught up in a high-ISO
    performance race. The next Canon dSLR will sport a 12,800 ISO for its high
    advertised usable ISO without much of an addition of more pixels. It
    wouldn't surprise me if the 1D Mk IV will top out at 12MPs.

    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 27, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.