Not just Nikon

Moderated by: chrisbet,

All about VR.

Author	Post

Posted by jk: Mon Oct 7th, 2013 16:57

1^st Post

I just read this in a Scott Kelby book.
"If you want sharper sports photos, and you have lenses that use VR (Vibration Reduction on Nikons) or IS (Image Stabilization on Canons), you should turn this off. There are two important reasons why: (1) the VR (or IS) slows down the speed of the autofocus, so it can stabilize the image, and (2) since you'll be shooting at fast shutter speeds (hopefully at 1â„1000 of a second or higher), you don't get any benefit from VR (or IS), which is designed to help you in low-light, slow shutter speed situations. In fact, it works against you, because the VR (or IS) system is searching for vibration and that can cause slight movement. Normally, that wouldn't be a problem, because you want VR (or IS) to do its thing in low light, but in brighter light (and faster shutter speeds), this movement can make things less sharp than they could be, so make sure you turn VR (or IS) off."

I'd never really thought about this before but it does make sense.
It really does call into question the need for VR except in low light conditions.

____________________
Still learning after all these years!
https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none

Posted by Eric: Mon Oct 7th, 2013 17:16

2^nd Post

jk wrote:
I just read this in a Scott Kelby book.
"If you want sharper sports photos, and you have lenses that use VR (Vibration Reduction on Nikons) or IS (Image Stabilization on Canons), you should turn this off. There are two important reasons why: (1) the VR (or IS) slows down the speed of the autofocus, so it can stabilize the image, and (2) since you'll be shooting at fast shutter speeds (hopefully at 1â„1000 of a second or higher), you don't get any benefit from VR (or IS), which is designed to help you in low-light, slow shutter speed situations. In fact, it works against you, because the VR (or IS) system is searching for vibration and that can cause slight movement. Normally, that wouldn't be a problem, because you want VR (or IS) to do its thing in low light, but in brighter light (and faster shutter speeds), this movement can make things less sharp than they could be, so make sure you turn VR (or IS) off."

I'd never really thought about this before but it does make sense.
It really does call into question the need for VR except in low light conditions.
Haven't got VR on any of my pro lenses, but confess that the collection of lenses I acquired for the D7000 all have it...always on. Maybe I am less discerning these days, but the out of focus shots I see are down to me technique and not any hesitation that VR might be applying.

I suppose if you are trying to suck out every grain of quality it's worth considering every bit of help.

____________________
Eric

Posted by amazing50: Fri Oct 11th, 2013 17:47

3^rd Post

I've been using VR at high shutter speeds, maybe thats the problem with my 24-120 being a bit off at infinity.

____________________
There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept ;~) Mike Grace

Posted by Eric: Fri Oct 11th, 2013 18:03

4^th Post

amazing50 wrote:
I've been using VR at high shutter speeds, maybe thats the problem with my 24-120 being a bit off at infinity.
Interesting thought.

____________________
Eric

Posted by Iain: Sat Oct 12th, 2013 14:10

5^th Post

I have never used vr/is when using a lens for sport or wildlife for the reason the Scott gives in the book.

Posted by Eric: Mon Oct 14th, 2013 12:31

6^th Post

jk wrote: I just read this in a Scott Kelby book.
"If you want sharper sports photos, and you have lenses that use VR (Vibration Reduction on Nikons) or IS (Image Stabilization on Canons), you should turn this off. There are two important reasons why: (1) the VR (or IS) slows down the speed of the autofocus, so it can stabilize the image, and (2) since you'll be shooting at fast shutter speeds (hopefully at 1â„1000 of a second or higher), you don't get any benefit from VR (or IS), which is designed to help you in low-light, slow shutter speed situations. In fact, it works against you, because the VR (or IS) system is searching for vibration and that can cause slight movement. Normally, that wouldn't be a problem, because you want VR (or IS) to do its thing in low light, but in brighter light (and faster shutter speeds), this movement can make things less sharp than they could be, so make sure you turn VR (or IS) off."

I'd never really thought about this before but it does make sense.
It really does call into question the need for VR except in low light conditions.I wonder if this may account for some of the performance issues I have with the Fuji?

____________________
Eric

Posted by TomOC: Mon Oct 14th, 2013 14:24

7^th Post

I think the VR issue applied to the older VR only. Early ones had user guides that said to turn them off when on a tripod (more or less for the reasons in the Kelby article) and on when hand holding only.

____________________
Tom O'Connell

-Lots of people talk to animals.... Not very many listen, though.... That's the problem.

Benjamin Hoff, The Tao of Pooh

Posted by Eric: Mon Oct 14th, 2013 15:30

8^th Post

TomOC wrote:
I think the VR issue applied to the older VR only. Early ones had user guides that said to turn them off when on a tripod (more or less for the reasons in the Kelby article) and on when hand holding only.
Haven't read Scott's article. You clearly put a different spin on the debate.

Not sure how Fuji's system compares with other VR. But it still remains a 'potential' contributor to image clarity where camera response time Is less than what we come to expect from a DSLR?

____________________
Eric

Posted by amazing50: Thu Oct 24th, 2013 20:01

9^th Post

amazing50 wrote: I've been using VR at high shutter speeds, maybe thats the problem with my 24-120 being a bit off at infinity.
I went back to Elora and reshot the church from about the same position only this time I used a tripod, removed the UV filter used live view, manual focus with the magnifier and turned off the VR.

The result was better than expected. The f/3.5 24-120 is not a problem on the D600.

____________________
There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept ;~) Mike Grace

Posted by jk: Fri Oct 25th, 2013 05:30

10^th Post

amazing50 wrote: amazing50 wrote: I've been using VR at high shutter speeds, maybe thats the problem with my 24-120 being a bit off at infinity.
I went back to Elora and reshot the church from about the same position only this time I used a tripod, removed the UV filter used live view, manual focus with the magnifier and turned off the VR.

The result was better than expected. The f/3.5 24-120 is not a problem on the D600.

Well that is good news.

So of all the things you changed from the original did you manage to work out if it was one or many items that were causing the lack of sharpness.

Was it:....

VR
UV filter
Manual focus
AF
Dodgy eyes.

I am tending to think that in most cases of focus problems it is me and my dodgy eyes. What I do know is that at this point in time I have no cataracts but I do have astigmatism and myopia and unless I wear my contacts rather than my glasses I dont necessarily get sharpest focus all the time unless I use AF!

____________________
Still learning after all these years!
https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none

Posted by Eric: Fri Oct 25th, 2013 05:48

11^th Post

amazing50 wrote:
amazing50 wrote: I've been using VR at high shutter speeds, maybe thats the problem with my 24-120 being a bit off at infinity.
I went back to Elora and reshot the church from about the same position only this time I used a tripod, removed the UV filter used live view, manual focus with the magnifier and turned off the VR.

The result was better than expected. The f/3.5 24-120 is not a problem on the D600.

Good job.

I am wondering if VR really stands for 'variable results'?

____________________
Eric

Posted by amazing50: Fri Oct 25th, 2013 09:29

12^th Post

jk wrote:
So of all the things you changed from the original did you manage to work out if it was one or many items that were causing the lack of sharpness.

Was it:....

VR
UV filter
Manual focus
AF
Dodgy eyes.

The original shot was AF and I used the magnifier and MF on the follow up shots and a tripod. The first follow up shot was with the VR and it was lacking sharpness even at 1/750 sec. For now I'll not be using VR except in low light situations where it has proven to be useful. This will also extend my battery life somewhat.

I will be doing some tests on the UV filter etc. time and weather permitting, We had our first snowfall yesterday;~)

____________________
There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept ;~) Mike Grace

Posted by jk: Fri Oct 25th, 2013 13:39

13^th Post

If you have a high quality UV filter and it is clean then I dont expect it to effect the IQ by very much. The VR is probably the most likely problem but every little counts if you want a sharp image.

____________________
Still learning after all these years!
https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none

Posted by cab: Sun Nov 3rd, 2013 02:29

14^th Post

http://email.nikon.co.uk/Pages/Tips/1310/01/Tip-three.aspx

1st new

This is topic ID = 722
Nikon DSLR Forums > Camera and Lens Forums > Lenses > All about VR.	Top
Users viewing this topic

Current theme is Blue

A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you.