VR lens value on the new breed of DSLRS

K

Kholi

Section Moderator
Been pretty quiet around the VDSLR forum, mostly because I wasn't all that happy with the D90. With the GH-1 coming out, finally getting manual controls, I think I'll be a bit more satisfied even with the smaller sensor.

So, I picked up my D90 and I'm going to shoot an actual narrative project with it this coming Tuesday. What I wanted to experiment with were lenses. Another dissapointing factor of the D90 were the scarce lens choices, something that the Canon and especially the GH-1 will have.

I've got a set of Contax Zeiss lenses, but they no worky on the D90. So, I'm testing the Nikon 50/1.4, the D90 Kit Lens 18-105/3.5~5.6 and the Tamron 1.4X Extender adapter for Nikon mounts. It retains the pins for all of the electronic/auto features, which means VR lenses still work.

To sum it up: I realy wish VR and Stabilization lenses for other cameras were faster. For VDSLR work off the tripod, whether or not the camera has an immense amount of jello, VR/Electronicaly Stabilized lenses are really going to help.

The fastes VR lenses I know of in Nikon's market is the 70-200 VR, which I've used before and that sucker is sharp sharp sharp. Very pretty.

So with the GH-1's kit lens-- a newly developed long-zoom interchangeable lens – the LUMIX G VARIO HD 14-140mm/F4.0-5.8 ASPH./MEGA O.I.S. This lens was specifically designed to support HD movie recording and features a silent motor and continuous auto focusing (AF) capability; two features which distinguish the LUMIX GH1 from DSLRs that offer HD video recording capabilities.--

 Quote from the Panasonic Press Release, is slow-as-hell, but the O.I.S and the awesome, fast Auto Focus is really going to make the difference in situations where you're not just locked off.

The faster the sensor, the easier it is to commit to using these lenses in conjunction with gain/high iso, so perhaps the FASTEST glass you can get won't really be necessary for every single project.

Not to mention you should still LIGHT. LoL

It might be really nice to just have a tele-extender and a fast zoom with VR/OIS built-in.

Thoughts?
 
Yeah it's damn slow but I think the GH1 AF kit lens could be useful for steadicam work when you have to run really really fast. But time will tell if it will hold focus on your subject but I expect it should be ok at the wide end. For every other kind of shot I'll be sticking my nikon primes on it and maybe an olympus 14-35 f/2.......this is all assuming Nikon don't get their **** together soon with the D400.
 
There's a video on the GH-1 website showing a live video of the Auto Focus tracking a little girl's face while running. It works, and it looks like it works pretty damned well.

But the OIS isnt' just for steadi work. I've been toying around for an hour with the D90 again and the VR lens @ 145mm is surprisingly stable. Slow, but stable my friend. I'm suddenly a bit more confident about doing handheld work with it. I can only suspect the GH-1 would be better.
 
I bought a steadytracker for mine. I suspect with an OIS lens it will be rocksteady baby. got a link to that clip? Stable at 145mm that's pretty good. I remember when I first got mine and tried my 105mm handheld. It was pretty scary stuff. On the steadytracker with a 28/35/50mm lens it's great.

I'm thinking the GH1 could really be the new DVX. It would be really great if Nikon stepped up and we had an option though.

I seriously thought about getting a 5D MKII just because it's full frame and has a high bit-rate. There's a workflow to convert to 24p in compressor but the thing that really put me off is that you have to re-trick the shutter/iso every time you hit record. At least the D90 settings are retained as long as you are in live view (until it overheats)
 
I can only comment on VR for stills, not video, but it does make a pretty huge difference. In general I've ignored any lens slower than f/2.8 as too slow, but the VR made me give a second look to a lens like the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6, and I am very impressed with it. Of course, VR generally doesn't do anything for subject motion, so that's still a problem.

To be honest I haven't thought very much about the implications of VR on video. Since it's housed in the lens, I guess it would be continuously active, but still I wonder if there might be some disconnectedness between that operation and the frame rate of the video. Does it work constantly as advertised?
 
Uploading a sample video as well. @ 147mm on the 18-105/3.5~5.6 Kit Lens @ 105 + 1.4x Tamron AF Extender which equals about 147mm.

What' I'm not sure about is whether or not the VR is causing the actual video to stutter on the D90. It looks like it, but I can't tell if it's just my small laptop not being able to play back the AVI properly.

The more I look at what I have done, though, just tonight the more I'm realizing that handheld is going to really work out on these things. So long as there's a lens employed that has Stabilization and we can figure out how to get the cleanest image out of them in low light.

Doug, the OIS is active the entire time the video is running. And it's pretty snappy, to be honest. Faster than the HVX200 OIS or at least as fast as.
 
I'm not a big fan of handheld but I don't mind stuff shot with a stabilizer. And I'm not talking about rolling shutter just jerky camera movement that is too distracting. A cheap photographic tripod collapsed and held mid shaft does wonders for the D90.

I think a friend might be able to get me dealer price on a GH1 which is more incentive to get one because I can always sell and get my money back.
 
it's steadier than what I shot with my 105mm nikkor. But of-course it wouldn't be so dark with the nikkor
 
squig said:
it's steadier than what I shot with my 105mm nikkor. But of-course it wouldn't be so dark with the nikkor
Click to expand...

Wasn't trying to get it clean or bright. Just testing the VR. I also use light... as most people should, so the lenses shouldn't really be TOO much of an issue as far as light goes.

I've got another clip in the bathroom, where light gathers, and it's honestly pretty nice. I think VR lenses are really going to seal the deal on faster cameras with aperture, shutter and ISO controls on the fly.

So looking forward to the GH-1.
 
I'm trying to avoid using much lighting. The low light ability of the GH1 is my greatest concern. The G1 doesn't come close to the D90.

Yeah the GH1 is sounding pretty useable. I won't look like a crazy man pointing my camera in the air anymore. It just kills me that my wides won't be as wide and I'm trying to figure out if my 50mm is going to work for me @100mm or do I now need to get a 35mm f/1.4
 
Why would you ever want to avoid LIGHTING if you're shooting narrative material? Faster cameras don't mean you get lazy with lighting. Just means your wattage doesn't have to be insane.

Anyway, back to VR lens theories, discussions, tips and tricks.
 
Kholi said:
Why would you ever want to avoid LIGHTING
Click to expand...
some forms of lighting causes the light levels to drop even without decreasing wattage, since you're removing light rather than adding it. subject placement and flagging, sometimes bouncing, within naturally lit scenes is my favorite way of shooting and it means you very often need to work at f/2.8 or lower. in my opinion it's very hard to create natural light by adding light, or maybe not hard but very time and wattage consuming. as soon as you add one light you see the need to add three more to compensate. it's not suitable for the style of shooting a dslr otherwise lends itself to.

/matt
 
Well I'm aiming for as natural a look as possible so I'm putting money towards fast glass rather than lots of lighting. Of-course I'll use lighting but it will be subtle where it needs to be. At this point lighting is probably my weakest area but I learn fast.
 
who do you say the g1 doesn't come as close to the d90? or why make that assumption? and i'm with kholi, lighting is essential. some of the most "natural" lit scenes are lighted to look that way.
 
Squig man you may wanna take abreak from the forums. LoL

That's a G1,not a GH-1. Don't care how many numbers or letters they share they are not the same cameras, so going by this or that from a previous model doesn't do anything good for you.

Write some more, man. Honestly, if most of us put as much effort into writing as we do into posting we could finish several feature length scripts in the span of just months.

The gear is important, but the script is where it starts and without one (unless you just shoot off the cuff, but then you'd be out shooting though, right?) you dont' get to use the gear.

GH-1 will be another awesome tool with more expanded image controls than those before it.

This topic isn't about that, though, it's about VR Lens validity and purpose.
 
and again, you're doing a comparison in "still mode". in case haven't noticed, the d90's low light in movie mode is awful but better than camcorders/35mm adapters. The d90's still mode iso ratings out play the professional D300. Since there is not way to adjust iso manually in d90 for movie mode, the results are hideous if the iso/gain is pushed too high. the gh1 is probably going to be on par with the ability to shoot low light just as good as the d90, hopefully better iso control automatically or manually, because the sensor is just a big. well, a tad bit smaller.
 
yeah I'm comparing still mode but light captured by the sensor is light captured by the sensor. Sure lots more goes on inside there before we get 24fps on a card but it's interesting reading.

If the GH1 turns out to be 2 stops slower than the D90 in movie mode I'd rather spend my money on a second D90 or D60x?
 
Last edited:
Car3o said:
some of the most "natural" lit scenes are lighted to look that way.
Click to expand...
i just don't see a d90 production renting hmi's for twice the cost of the camera per day to achive this, and an unexperienced dp will rarely achieve more nautral retults with a lowel kit than available light already provides. shaping light, bouncing and flagging, sometimes just through blocking, is also lighting even though it's often referred to as "no lighting" and it means the light level is often very low. there are other reasons for keeping the level low as well, so when people say they don't want to light i don't think you should assume that they're not conscious about light and the look of the scene. i've shot scenes with everything from nothing to a 100k hmi package that came in two trucks so i'm fairly aware of what's involved in both.

/matt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top