Does Canon Have VR on theirs like Nikon Does?

PhotographicIdiot · Mar 8, 2010

I'm currently looking into the future as my upgraded camera and Ive been wanting to buy the Canon Eos 5D Mark ii but I come to realize does Canon have VR like I have on my Nikon D60? I don't think there is but would like to know if there is similar VR on a Canon. Would be very grateful if anyone could help me out with this problem. If not then I am going to go with my second choice as my upgrade camera a Nikon D90.

Jesse

anm90 · Mar 8, 2010

To answer your question, canon does have VR. They call it IS (image stabilization) rather than Nikon's Vibration Reduction. Different words for the same thing.

But why do you want to go to Canon if you already have Nikon gear? I'm assuming you have at least a few Nikon lenses that you use with your D60. Why buy a camera that would make that investment completely useless?

PJL · Mar 8, 2010

Point of clarification: your D60 doesn't have VR; the lens you use on your D60 has VR. Canons and Nikons put their VR/IS systems in their lenses, not in their camera bodies.

PhotographicIdiot · Mar 8, 2010

your right PJL on the lenses thing. I just wasn't sure so I just said what I said. but yeah im an idiot. lol Anyhows thank you anm90. I do have two lenses for my Nikon D60 ones a kit lens 18-55mm and the other is 55-200mm lenses. I know as you stated would make no sense as to why i would go with a canon as my upgrade choice. I just thought I try something new. I mean in the end i am going to use both cameras. I mean probably the Canon (if I get it) more than other. So IS is just another word for VR as you said? You sure, cause if I buy it i definitely going to be stuck with it. 3,299 bucks. But this isn't till probably next year when I do do the upgrade. So i still have time to think about it. Do you like the Nikon D90? and thank you both for your help. appreciate it.

anm90 · Mar 8, 2010

The D90 is amazing. I would strongly recommend that you stick with one brand because you will kick yourself if you have to buy two of the same lens for two camera bodies. For example, if you want an 18-55 for your Canon, you'll have to buy a whole new lens for it even though you already have an 18-55 for your Nikon. If you buy another Nikon, all of your lenses are interchangeable between the camera bodies. It just doesn't make any sense to buy multiple camera bodies of different brands.

DRoberts · Mar 9, 2010

I agree with anm90. It would be better to stick with one brand...If you change to canon I would suggest you sale all your nikon gear to help fund the canon gear.

PJL · Mar 9, 2010

I guess my question is: if you're going to go full-size sensor in Canon, why wouldn't you also consider full-size sensor in Nikon? Granted, the D90 is a more cost-effective upgrade because you can use your small sensor lenses with the D90 without affecting focal length or useful sensor size, but the Canon 5D Mk II is in a different league than the D90; the comparable Nikon at that price point would be the D700.

Big Mike · Mar 9, 2010

What are you hoping to get out of an upgrade?

You could buy $10,000 worth of gear and it won't necessarily make your photos any better.

PhotographicIdiot · Mar 9, 2010

Your absolutely right anm90. I should stick to just the Nikon. I jsut thought it be exciting to try something different. But now as DRoberts and PJL have pointed out it would just be better not changing. and BigMike i just wanted to try something new. you know a bigger challenge? I know that no matter what you get it won't make your pictures any better and that its up to you to do that. Honestly all like I said i just wanted to try something new that was different from Nikon. But I am starting to think i should be just getting Nikon instead.

Soocom1 · Mar 9, 2010

My two cents.....

Stick w/ the Nikon stuff and use the money to get a first class body. Keep the glass.

As a former Minolta user (stolen) I HAD to upgrade if I wanted to stay in photography. I chose Canon because they had a full size sensor and it was available used for a great price. Plus Canon's history. (The AK-47 of the camera world... ugly but reliable). Actually I would compare it to a Dragunov, but thats neither here nor there.. lol

But seriously, a "challange" in this respect is actually a fool's errand IMHO.
Just use all that money to get a D3 full frame. Then use what you have and go forward.

Big Mike · Mar 9, 2010

I agree, switching systems (or adding another one), just for the heck of it, would be very superfluous. Nikon has a full range of cameras and lenses for you to choose from, most of which will let you use the lens or lenses you have for your current camera.

I certainly understand the desire to try something new. Many of us here have G.A.S. (gear acquisition syndrome). But unless you have more money than sense, there are many better ways to give yourself new challenges in photography. A new/different lens will often be a bigger change than a new/different body. Maybe a Macro lens, maybe an ultra wide lens, maybe a fast prime lens, maybe a good telephoto etc.
And photography is all about light, so what about exploring the world of lighting? Maybe with flash...better yet, off camera flash.

Of course, the best thing you can add to any photo kit, is knowledge....experience, education etc. Maybe consider taking some classes or working with a pro for a while etc.

A shiny new camera is great for a while, but you'd probably soon find yourself in the same situation as you are now...looking for somewhere else to spend your money.

PJL · Mar 9, 2010

Soocom1 said:
My two cents.....

Stick w/ the Nikon stuff and use the money to get a first class body. Keep the glass.

As a former Minolta user (stolen) I HAD to upgrade if I wanted to stay in photography. I chose Canon because they had a full size sensor and it was available used for a great price. Plus Canon's history. (The AK-47 of the camera world... ugly but reliable). Actually I would compare it to a Dragunov, but thats neither here nor there.. lol

But seriously, a "challange" in this respect is actually a fool's errand IMHO.
Just use all that money to get a D3 full frame. Then use what you have and go forward.

Given that he has all small-sensor oriented glass, just getting a D3 and sticking to the glass he has is a terrible idea, IMO, as it removes all benefits of having a full-frame sensor to begin with.

PhotographicIdiot · Mar 9, 2010

Yeah I'm starting to think maybe I should be looking into Nikons instead of the Canon. Your all right though. PJL so i should go with something like a canon? what you mean by it being a bad idea?

Big Mike · Mar 9, 2010

PJL so i should go with something like a canon?

I think they are saying that you don't need/want a full frame Nikon, like the D3 or D700. But a Nikon D90 or D300 would be a better choice because they have the same size sensor as your D40, and your current lenses would work well.

PJL · Mar 9, 2010

PhotographicIdiot said:
Yeah I'm starting to think maybe I should be looking into Nikons instead of the Canon. Your all right though. PJL so i should go with something like a canon? what you mean by it being a bad idea?

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I understand it Nikon allows you to use DX (small sensor) lenses on FX (full sensor) cameras, but the camera compensates by using a smaller segment of its sensor, which completely negates the benefit of having a full-frame sensor to begin with. And Mike is right; your glass would be more useful on a better small-frame camera like the D90.