Nikon cameras/lenses - Image Stabilization VR??

[ScoutR]

Hi everyone: My camera has been in the shop for about a month now which has given me too much time to think and I am considering purchasing a new camera and perhaps a lens.

I currently have a D3000 and am thinking of upgrading to a D90 or D7000. One of the reasons I want to upgrade the camera is because if I understand correctly there are more lens choices with either of the upgrades. However, I think I got confused somewhere along the line because I thought I would not need VR lenses with the new camera.

The latest lens on my wish list is a NIKON 300MM F4 IF-ED AF-S. Note the lack of VR and this particular lens does not come with VR, but I thought that would be OK with the new camera until I looked up a review on both of them and according the the specs neither the D90 or D7000 have Image stabilization built into the camera.

Currently I have the 18-200 f5.6 zoom lens with VRII and i cannot imagine shooting without VR turned on. (actually I can imagine it because I've done it by mistake, and I need the VR)

There are not that many lenses available with VR, so I am thinking I must be confused about this Image Stabilization business, because I don't see how anyone would be able to shoot hand held with a non VR lens. I thought I needed VR for my D3000 but that other cameras had image stabilization in the camera. If this is not correct then I can stroke one thing off my list of reasons to get a new camera.

So the question is: Do any of the Nikon cameras have image stabilization built into the camera. I would like to get a camera that gave me more lens options, but if VR lenses are required on all the cameras in order to shoot hand held, well that will make a big difference in my decision.

Hope someone can help me out on this. I have been trying to research myself, but usually end up confused and lost in a mess of irrelevant technicalities and go off on many tangents

Thanks
Wendy

[epmi314]

Wendy,

I shoot Nikon as well. You should check out Nikonusa.com for the tech specs on the various DSLR cameras but I don't believe Nikon has a DSLR with internal VR or image stabilization, if you will. The higher end cameras have a significantly more robust internal focus system that provide more auto focus options with various lenses but again no IS. I believe it is available on some of the point and shoot cameras but that isn't what you are looking for. Is your strategy to buy a better camera and save some money on the lenses by virtue of not needed the IS internal to the lens(es)?

[PhotomanJohn]

Wendy,

VR or IS is a function that is in the lens where it senses camera movement and moves one or more lens elements to keep the image in the same place on the sensor. To my knowledge if they do something like this in a camera they are actually cropping the image and moving the position of the crop to make up for camera motion. I don't believe that any DSLRs made by the major companies have anything like this for a number of technical reasons.

VR is really not required for held-held photography as is clear from the millions of beautiful shots that were taken before it was invented. One does need to keep the shutter speed up which can be a challenge in low light situations. Also practice in holding and smooth operation of the shutter release will improve how slow of a shutter speed can be used.

John

[rpcrowe]

Wendy,

The Nikon Vibration Reduction (VR) system as well as the Canon Image Stabilization (IS) systems are lens shift, not sensor shift based. Lens shift systems are said to be more efficient, especially in long focal length lenses where stabilization is most needed. Sensor shift systems are used by Sony and other manufacturers.

Is stabilization generally needed? I personally enjoy the Image Stabilization in my Canon lenses. I shot with a 70-200mm f/4L lens which did not have IS for many years. I never got the full use out of this lens because I was a slave to bright light conditions when I wanted to hand hold the lens. Of course, using a tripod and in many cases, using a monopod could negate or reduce the need for stabilization but, I didn't want to be limited to tripod or monopod support. I am able to use my 70-200mm f/4L Image Stabilized lens 4-5x more often because I can hand hold in lower light levels. In fact, I can hand hold this lens at lower light levels than I could hand hold a non stabilized f/2.8 lens of equivalent focal lengths.

IMO, I would not want a long focal length lens without some sort of stabilization. I have one, a 400mm f/5.6L and really wish it were stabilized. The IS in my 300mm f/4L IS lens allows me to hand hold the lens more often and also helps get sharper images when I am monopod mounted.

I once thought that stabilization in shorter focal length lenses was icing on the cake and unnecessary. I still believe that stabilization is not "NECESSARY" in shorter focal lengths but, it is certainly "NICE" to have. The IS of my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens, along with the constant f/2.8 aperture, makes this lens a very viable low light glass. It would be even more helpful in lenses of slower and viable apertures such as an f/3.5-5.6 lens.

[Tringa]

Most DSLRs do not have image stabalisation/vibration reduction in the camera and rely on it being in the lens.

Pentax and Samsung have IS/VR in the camera and therefore any lens used is, in effect, an IS/VR lens, but I'm guessing as you already have Nikon equipment a change to another brand is not an option you want to consider.

I use the IS on my camera but I wonder if we have become used to it. If it is not available (as is the situation for some lenses) we would just learn to be more careful about shutter speed and supporting the camera as we used to do years ago when there was no IS.

Sorry this is not any help.

Dave

[The Stig]

I would say that at focal lengths from 300mm and up you definetely need either VR or a fast lens. Considering the cost and bulk of a fast (f/2.8) 300mm lens, VR begins to look pretty good. I have a Nikkor 70-300mm lens with VR, and at a maximum aperture of 5.6 wide open at 300 mm it is impossible for me to get short enough shutter speeds to manage without VR. Maybe in bright daylight it would work, but that's it.

I think you have more lens choices with the D90/D7000 because they have focusing motors in-camera.

[ScoutR]

Thanks so much everyone for the quick and helpful replies. I think I have it sorted out now. I definitely had things mixed up with regards to in camera image stabilization and as Scott mentioned, I was probably getting it mixed up with the IF (internal focusing) which is what I do not have in the Nikon D3000.

Generally speaking I just want to get better sharper pictures but I don't have a lot of money. My plan was to start with lenses (and I really liked the idea of the 300mm prime for bird shots this winter) and upgrade the camera later. I thought I needed VR lenses with the D3000, but got myself confused when I started researching. Now I realize that it is not VR/IS that I need it is IF. I get so confused with acronyms.

Anyway, now that you have helped me out with this, it's back to the drawing board as to how to distribute the funds. I think in the long run I am better off at this point upgrading the camera. I can't shoot above 400 ISO with the D3000 without introducing a lot of noise in shadow areas and cropping very much is out of the question. I'm not up for the expense or extra weight of a fast lens, so it seems the best option is upgrading the camera and I think the D90 or D7000 would both give me some extra speed, and also more and hopefully less expensive lens choices. If I can shoot at higher ISO's then maybe? I can get by without the VR, but I suppose I might have to reconsider the 300mm without VR regardless of what camera I end up with because of the focal length. I will definitely try it out first and see what kind of shots I get.

So... points for me to remember:
VR/IS is in the lens and may or may not be required depending on shooting conditions, but certainly expands the possibility of getting better shots under more conditions

IF (internal focusing) is not present in the D3000, but is in the D90 and D7000 (among others) and this is where the extra lens choices come into play.

I think I have this straight now, but PLEASE if I'm still mixed up let me know. I might be embarrassed but I won't be upset

Also, if anyone has any opinions on the D90 as opposed to the D7000 with regards to Dynamic Range and high ISO performance let me know. I think either will be better than the D3000, but I'm not sure how much better. The reviews seem to favour the D7000 which I suppose they should, it's 400 dollars more. If I had a million dollars the choices would be so easy.

Thanks again everyone for the help.
Wendy

[Viana]

I too am fond of VR, mainly because I try to avoid carrying a tripod. Would not want to shoot without it.


Check out the D300 & D300s as well. Only diff is the video capability in D300s, 2 card slots and you cannot load D2X picture controls.


IMHO, the best camera review site on the web is Digital Photography Review: http://www.dpreview.com/


D90 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD90/


D300 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD300/


D7000 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond7000/


Compare them and see.




You may want to consider purchasing a “previously loved” or refurbished SLR, Wendy in order to save money. Often people buy cameras but end up not using them or want something else, etc. Be sure to check out the shutter actuation count. Because shutters wear out since they are mechanical: http://www.nikonblog.net/shutter-actuations-photoshop


Refurbished: http://shop.nikonusa.com/store/nikon...ra_refurbished

[benm]

The D7000 has about one stop better low light capability and I think it has a higher top ISO. It also has a few more megapixels.

Compared to the D3000, the D90 (and I think the D7000) can use a few AF lenses that do not have their own built-in focus motor. You should realize that those types of lenses are now somewhat older and you can get newer versions that do have a built-in focus motor (and will therefore AF on the D3000).

If you are considering obtaining older Nikkor manual focus lenses (for example, AIS type) you should be aware that they will not meter on entry-level camera bodies such as the D3000 and not even on the the D90. To get the metering feature you need at least a D300. I'm pretty sure they will meter with the D7000 also.

[Dave Humphries]

Thanks so much everyone for the quick and helpful replies. I think I have it sorted out now. I definitely had things mixed up with regards to in camera image stabilization and as Scott mentioned, I was probably getting it mixed up with the IF (internal focusing) which is what I do not have in the Nikon D3000.

Generally speaking I just want to get better sharper pictures but I don't have a lot of money. My plan was to start with lenses (and I really liked the idea of the 300mm prime for bird shots this winter) and upgrade the camera later. I thought I needed VR lenses with the D3000, but got myself confused when I started researching. Now I realize that it is not VR/IS that I need it is IF. I get so confused with acronyms.

Anyway, now that you have helped me out with this, it's back to the drawing board as to how to distribute the funds. I think in the long run I am better off at this point upgrading the camera. I can't shoot above 400 ISO with the D3000 without introducing a lot of noise in shadow areas and cropping very much is out of the question. I'm not up for the expense or extra weight of a fast lens, so it seems the best option is upgrading the camera and I think the D90 or D7000 would both give me some extra speed, and also more and hopefully less expensive lens choices. If I can shoot at higher ISO's then maybe? I can get by without the VR, but I suppose I might have to reconsider the 300mm without VR regardless of what camera I end up with because of the focal length. I will definitely try it out first and see what kind of shots I get.

So... points for me to remember:
VR/IS is in the lens and may or may not be required depending on shooting conditions, but certainly expands the possibility of getting better shots under more conditions

IF (internal focusing) is not present in the D3000, but is in the D90 and D7000 (among others) and this is where the extra lens choices come into play.

I think I have this straight now, but PLEASE if I'm still mixed up let me know. I might be embarrassed but I won't be upset

Also, if anyone has any opinions on the D90 as opposed to the D7000 with regards to Dynamic Range and high ISO performance let me know. I think either will be better than the D3000, but I'm not sure how much better. The reviews seem to favour the D7000 which I suppose they should, it's 400 dollars more. If I had a million dollars the choices would be so easy.

Hi Wendy,

Still a bit muddled I'm afraid

The abbreviation "IF" does mean Internal Focussing, but it relates to the lens and basically means it is one where the front element doesn't rotate and/or extend during focussing, not the presence of a focus motor inside the camera body.

There is no acronym/abbreviation for what you need in order to get the wider lens choice, but it is the aforementioned focus motor inside the camera body and you have correctly identified the main two models you'd be interested in that have it.


I would hope that the D90, if still available, would be more than $400 cheaper, but I may be wrong. I'd go for a D7000 now, I must admit, it has to be better - although I've no personal experience with one compared to the D90, or my D5000, which has the same sensor as D90.

The D90 sensor will be good to 800 iso where your D3000 stops being good at 400, the D7000 should be better still.


Getting back to lenses;
Without a focus motor, you are really limited to "AF-S" lenses.
With a focus motor in the camera, you get to choose from "AF" and "AF-D" ones too. However, don't expect the fast focusing performance you have got used to with the AF-S lens - it will be (a bit) slower. It also opens up many more third party lenses with a Nikon AF mount.


I really don't see any benefit of the 300mm fixed lens (with no VR) you mention over the 70-300mm with VR - is there a reason you are avoiding the lens I have on my camera 80% of the time? It works for me with birds, but something longer would be better still, say 400mm, or even one of the Sigma's that go to 500mm, as Geoff F and others use.

Cheers,

[ScoutR]

Viana
Re: Nikon cameras/lenses - Image Stabilization VR??

I too am fond of VR, mainly because I try to avoid carrying a tripod. Would not want to shoot without it.


Check out the D300 & D300s as well. Only diff is the video capability in D300s, 2 card slots and you cannot load D2X picture controls.


IMHO, the best camera review site on the web is Digital Photography Review: http://www.dpreview.com/

Thanks Viana, now that I am up to speed on the VR thing and that it doesn't come in the camera, I agree I would not want to shoot without it. Maybe with a short lens, but certainly not a zoom. Even with VR I could use a tripod with my 18-200mm, but if I can raise the ISO a bit I'm hoping I can get things a bit better.

Ummm - I won't worry about deciding on cameras - I got a D7000 today. I think it is the right choice. I was actually looking at the D300 and D300s, but they cost even more than the D7000 which was the absolute max that I was willing to spend.

I use the DP review site quite often, BUT they loose me with all the technical stuff. I usually just look at the specification page and then jump to the conclusions. Even then I manage to get mixed up.

benm
Re: Nikon cameras/lenses - Image Stabilization VR??

The D7000 has about one stop better low light capability and I think it has a higher top ISO. It also has a few more megapixels.

Compared to the D3000, the D90 (and I think the D7000) can use a few AF lenses that do not have their own built-in focus motor. You should realize that those types of lenses are now somewhat older and you can get newer versions that do have a built-in focus motor (and will therefore AF on the D3000).

If you are considering obtaining older Nikkor manual focus lenses (for example, AIS type) you should be aware that they will not meter on entry-level camera bodies such as the D3000 and not even on the the D90. To get the metering feature you need at least a D300. I'm pretty sure they will meter with the D7000 also.

Thanks Ben, great to know. I'm thinking once I get used to the camera and i have the flexibility to use different lenses that i would watch for good deals on older lenses, but I would definitely want metering capability. Manual focus I can do, but I'd never get a shot if I had to calculate exposure. especially for outdoor shots. Experimenting inside with lights and still life shots would be OK though (I think)

From Dave H.
Hi Wendy,

Still a bit muddled I'm afraid

The abbreviation "IF" does mean Internal Focusing, but it relates to the lens and basically means it is one where the front element doesn't rotate and/or extend during focusing, not the presence of a focus motor inside the camera body.

There is no acronym/abbreviation for what you need in order to get the wider lens choice, but it is the aforementioned focus motor inside the camera body and you have correctly identified the main two models you'd be interested in that have it.

I had a feeling I would be hearing from you OK I'm embarrassed but still smiling and Thank You for straightening me out on this. I think I've got it now.

I would hope that the D90, if still available, would be more than $400 cheaper, but I may be wrong. I'd go for a D7000 now, I must admit, it has to be better - although I've no personal experience with one compared to the D90, or my D5000, which has the same sensor as D90.

I can (and did) get the D7000 for $1100 CDN and the D90 is available for $700. Both are body only. I didn't shop around - these are the sale prices at the main camera store in the area.

The D90 sensor will be good to 800 iso where your D3000 stops being good at 400, the D7000 should be better still.

That's what I'm hoping. I went ahead and purchased a D7000 because I figured if I got the D90 I would wish I had spent the extra money. If this camera lives up to its reviews, it will outlive me.

Getting back to lenses;
Without a focus motor, you are really limited to "AF-S" lenses.
With a focus motor in the camera, you get to choose from "AF" and "AF-D" ones too. However, don't expect the fast focusing performance you have got used to with the AF-S lens - it will be (a bit) slower. It also opens up many more third party lenses with a Nikon AF mount.

Thanks for the info, I am making a lens document when I am finished here so I can refer to it in the near future.

I really don't see any benefit of the 300mm fixed lens (with no VR) you mention over the 70-300mm with VR - is there a reason you are avoiding the lens I have on my camera 80% of the time? It works for me with birds, but something longer would be better still, say 400mm, or even one of the Sigma's that go to 500mm, as Geoff F and others use.

I was considering the 70 - 300 in fact when I asked about the 300mm at the store today the clerk recommended the 70 - 300 rather than the fixed lens.
My rationale is:
1. I figure a prime lens must be better than a zoom and i want at least 1 super duper lens. When I shoot birds I am always at 200mm and could use more, so I figured a fixed 300mm wasn't going to cause me and framing issues.
2. The 300 mm has super reviews. I don't know anyone with first hand experience but the reviews are glowing with regards to focus, bokeh, and sharpness. The reviews for the 70 -300 are also excellent, but only up to 200mm after that the reviews say it looses sharpness. What do you think? I know that's a silly question, because you love the lens, but... Are you happy with it at 300mm.

Right now I am thinking maybe I should get the other lens on my wish list, the 105mm macro and wait and see if the 300mm comes out with a VR version that I can afford.
Anyway, I am going to find your web page and have a look at some of your shots. You don't post enough here. The 70 -300 is certainly a more affordable option. I just don't want upgrade fever again next year.

Thanks Everyone for all the help. Getting things clarified here is Soooooo much better than hours weeding through technical data.

Wendy

[Hero]

What many reviewers forget to mention is that they test the 70-300mm FX lens on a FX camera, not on DX format. With a FX camera the lens has some issues with corner sharpness. The interesting bit here is that your D7000 is still a DX camera and will only use the center part of the image which has no issues at all.

[Letrow]

Wendy, I think most of the confusion is cleared away now.
So, on to the camera itself. If you have the choice between the D90 and D7000 I would definitely go for the D7000 system. I have had them both (still have the D7000) and they are both good cameras, but the D7000 has some extras that the D90 doesn't have (apart from a better sensor and some of the latest things that you 'really' need on a camera).
The ISO performance is great compared to the older models. The D90 is no match for it, period. One other advantage (but this depends on the older lenses you have) is that the D7000 can have any Nikon lens attached from AI onwards (see Ken Rockwell on lens compatibility).

It is a bit more expensive of course than the D90, but it will be a pleasure shooting with it.

[ScoutR]

What many reviewers forget to mention is that they test the 70-300mm FX lens on a FX camera, not on DX format. With a FX camera the lens has some issues with corner sharpness. The interesting bit here is that your D7000 is still a DX camera and will only use the center part of the image which has no issues at all.

Thanks Hero, that is interesting to know. I googled the lens again and found a review where they mentioned the same thing and they did their testing on a DX format. What you say about sharpness is true according the their review, but they do say that chromatic aberration gets rather nasty past 200mm.
The truth is in the testing though and I think in this case, I will test both lenses before I make a purchase. I really don't think I can shoot without VR though, so it will be an interesting test.
Thanks again for the info

Wendy

[ScoutR]

Wendy, I think most of the confusion is cleared away now.
So, on to the camera itself. If you have the choice between the D90 and D7000 I would definitely go for the D7000 system. I have had them both (still have the D7000) and they are both good cameras, but the D7000 has some extras that the D90 doesn't have (apart from a better sensor and some of the latest things that you 'really' need on a camera).
The ISO performance is great compared to the older models. The D90 is no match for it, period. One other advantage (but this depends on the older lenses you have) is that the D7000 can have any Nikon lens attached from AI onwards (see Ken Rockwell on lens compatibility).

It is a bit more expensive of course than the D90, but it will be a pleasure shooting with it.

I am soooo very glad to hear that seeing as I purchased the D7000 yesterday, and the fact that you have them both to compare gives me a lot of confidence that I made the right decision. Just out of curiosity what lenses do you have and which do you like the best for macros and florals?

Wendy

[Letrow]

I am soooo very glad to hear that seeing as I purchased the D7000 yesterday, and the fact that you have them both to compare gives me a lot of confidence that I made the right decision. Just out of curiosity what lenses do you have and which do you like the best for macros and florals?

Wendy

Wendy, good to hear. There is a firmware update out Today as well (version 1.03) by the way. Go to the Nikon site and if you register your camera you can download it from there.

For my lenses, see my signature below.

To be honest, for my macro work I like the Nikkor 105mm micro F2.8 AF-S VR very much. Autofocus is very fast and accurate (I use single point autofocus for this, otherwise (with macros) your focus is going to be all over the place). The manual says that VR doesn't work on the very close distances, which might be true, but I leave it on anyway and get a lot of sharp results.

Two tips for you: 1.) read Ken Rockwell's guide to the D7000. You may not agree with everything, but he has some good tips. I don't agree with his Autofocus setting by the way, for me it is Single point or 39 point 3D, but never Auto.
2.) Use the Auto ISO sensitivity control (see your manual on how to set it). What it does for you is that it will vary the ISO (up to a value that you feel comfortable with), even when you are in manual mode. The advantage is (e.g. when shooting insects) that you can set both shutterspeed and aperture and still get the correct exposure every time (because ISO will go up or down according to what is needed). For me this is like a supermode, in which Aperture Priority and Shutter Priority are combined.

Interested to hear how you like the camera in a little while.

[ScoutR]

Thanks for the info and links Peter. I do plan to do a bit of reading before I start using this camera. There are lots of bells and whistles that i am not used to. I've been going through the users manual and so far I'm impressed with the way it is written. Usually I rename I rename them as Useless Manuals and after the first migraine they don't get looked at again. I will check out the Rockwell guide too. I'm not in a hurry to start using this camera. The D3000 just came back from repair and I have to use it for a bit and make sure it's working the way it should.

I like that variable ISO idea and with the range on this camera sounds like that will be put into play for sure. Thanks for the tip.

Sorry about this silly question regarding your lenses. I just noticed that signatures are getting cut off sometimes and that is why I didn't see it. It's there now though. The 105 f2.8 has been on my wish list for a long time now. I kind of want a long lens right now though for the winter when I like shooting birds, but hope to have the 105 by the spring or sooner.

I'll let you know how things are going and when I get up to speed I will start posting some shots. I will more than likely keep this thread open because I'm sure I'm going to have a lot of questions. I'm already anticipating problems working with my versions of Lightroom and Elements. I've downloaded 2 upgrade files, but I'm not looking forward to the installation. I convert to DNG and right now it looks like the simpler option might be to upgrade the DNG converter than to try and upgrade Lightroom and Elements to work with the D7000 files. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it though. I think you have Lightroom too, so stay tuned.

Wendy

[Dave Humphries]

I had a feeling I would be hearing from you

Would I let you down in your hour of need?
Of course not - but now I am envious (note green smilie)

The reviews for the 70 -300 are also excellent, but only up to 200mm after that the reviews say it looses sharpness. What do you think? I know that's a silly question, because you love the lens, but... Are you happy with it at 300mm?

Yes, but at f/8 - f/16, not f/5.6 or even f/7.1 - it just seems better at f/8 and above.

Anyway, I am going to find your web page and have a look at some of your shots. You don't post enough here.

I know, may be it's a confidence thing, my time seems better spent here helping people than PP'ing and posting my own pictures, I might get 'found out'

I have a week off work starting Saturday, with Rebecca (eldest daughter) coming to visit and we intend some photography trips

The 70 -300 is certainly a more affordable option. I just don't want upgrade fever again next year.

The only fever might be for something longer still and the only cost effective options there are probably the Sigma's, I have no desire for another 300mm, especially one without IS as I really only ever shoot handheld.

Cheers,

[ScoutR]

Would I let you down in your hour of need?
Of course not - but now I am envious (note green smilie)

There is a lot to be said for sticking with what you have. This was an impulse thing for me and that's bad. I'm sure I will be happy with it, but it took me so long to feel comfortable with the D3000 and get the controls memorized - I'm not looking forward to the same process with the new one.

Yes, but at f/8 - f/16, not f/5.6 or even f/7.1 - it just seems better at f/8 and above.

Yes, it's very tempting. The lens does seem to be very highly recommended and I think I'd be very happy with it. Reviews are great, but when it comes down to it I probably would not even notice the difference in sharpness at 200 vs 300mm.

I know, may be it's a confidence thing, my time seems better spent here helping people than PP'ing and posting my own pictures, I might get 'found out'

I have a week off work starting Saturday, with Rebecca (eldest daughter) coming to visit and we intend some photography trips

Hope you get a chance to post some shots. I've had a look at your Pbase page but it's really hard sort out the shots taken with the 300 zoom. I notice you've managed some great bird shots and even some in flight, and there is a butterfly there that I think was done with the 105 that is excellent. I know you have shots posted here too from back in the day when you used to post more, so I will have a look at those too.

The only fever might be for something longer still and the only cost effective options there are probably the Sigma's, I have no desire for another 300mm, especially one without IS as I really only ever shoot handheld.

Yes, I think you are right. I'm already wondering if 300mm is going to be enough, but the prices do go up rather drastically after 300mm. I'm pretty sure I will try renting a few different ones to try out before I decide on this one.

Thanks again for the help, and I hope you get some good photo ops during your daughters visit

Wendy