Active vs Normal VR
- Thread starter GadgetGod
- Start date
- Status
ongbenghui
Member
Correct me if I am wrong... Normal VR is to correct for vertical movement only. Active VR will correct for vertical and horizontal movement. So, Active VR is not good for panning shots.
I use Active most of the time, in case my hand shake left and right.
Please advise.
I use Active most of the time, in case my hand shake left and right.
Please advise.
Correct me if I am wrong... Normal VR is to correct for vertical movement only. Active VR will correct for vertical and horizontal movement. So, Active VR is not good for panning shots.
I use Active most of the time, in case my hand shake left and right.
Please advise.
Normal will normally correct for both horizontal and vertical vibrations but it will also detect if there is a panning in one axis and disable the correction for that axis. In Active mode, the correction will be more aggressive on both axes and will not detect panning, that's why it can be used if you're shooting from a moving vehicle.
Last edited:
The 18-200 is using the newer generation VRII.
chanjyj
New Member
That doens't really explain why I see the 80-400 (first VR lens IIRC) seems to stabilise the image more. I am leaning towards the theory of lens weight/length heavier/longer = less effective VR.
I think it has to do with the weight of the VR element.
chanjyj
New Member
Weight of VR element? Too cheem for me :embrass:
The VR element has to move to correct the camera movement. If it's too heavy, then it will not be able to move fast enough.
chanjyj
New Member
How would you be able to determine VR element weight from the lens?
I won't. ;p
I think it's not the VR module, but rather the lenses' dimensions that make the difference, the 70-200 is a huge lens compared to the 18-200, holding a big 70-200 cannon will be comparatively less stable to start of with. thus the perception that the 70-200 VR is less effective, as it actually wrks harder to correct more human movement errors.
Just my 2 cents, think this argument make sense to me.
chanjyj
New Member
That was what I said in an earlier post - centre of gravity. Not much different from what you post here. However, I think isisaxon might be correct too? His theory makes sense also :dunno:
You are wrong there.. A heavier lens has greater inertial mass so it will be more stable than a lighter lens. That's why in the not so long ago days when VR wasn't invented yet, people like heavy heavy stuff... Good for the picture... but definitely not good for the back.. ;p
Last edited:
chanjyj
New Member
:bsmili
Greater inertial mass is correct. However, the smaller cameras eg D40 will be "front heavy", offset of CG. They will end up using 1 hand only to balance the lens (that would be the hand holding the lens). But if you plonk it on a D2x, I believe CG will alter such that you are actually stabilising it with both hands.
Another reason might be muscle just not strong enough to hold that kind of weight and arm muscle go into muscles spasms? ;p :bsmilie::bsmilie:
Greater inertial mass is correct. However, the smaller cameras eg D40 will be "front heavy", offset of CG. They will end up using 1 hand only to balance the lens (that would be the hand holding the lens). But if you plonk it on a D2x, I believe CG will alter such that you are actually stabilising it with both hands.
Another reason might be muscle just not strong enough to hold that kind of weight and arm muscle go into muscles spasms? ;p :bsmilie::bsmilie:
Yah.. that's why the balance of the setup is important.. I was using a Canon PnS without IS when I went for an overseas trip a couple of years back... I couldn't even hold 1/30 at the 28mm equivalent!! It was simply too light.. Ended up with a whole lot of pictures I needed to PS because I didn't like the reproduction. Really regretted not bringing my D70s then...
- Status
Similar threads
