 |
| |
| This site requires new users to accept that 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@nikondslr.uk after requesting a new account. Thank you. |
| Moderated by: chrisbet, | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
jk
|
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. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote:I just read this in a Scott Kelby book. 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. |
|||||||||
amazing50
|
I've been using VR at high shutter speeds, maybe thats the problem with my 24-120 being a bit off at infinity. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
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. |
|||||||||
Iain
|
I have never used vr/is when using a lens for sport or wildlife for the reason the Scott gives in the book. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote: I just read this in a Scott Kelby book.I wonder if this may account for some of the performance issues I have with the Fuji? |
|||||||||
TomOC
|
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. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
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? |
|||||||||
amazing50
|
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. |
|||||||||
jk
|
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. 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! |
|||||||||
Eric
|
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. Good job. I am wondering if VR really stands for 'variable results'? |
|||||||||
amazing50
|
jk wrote:
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;~) |
|||||||||
jk
|
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. |
|||||||||
cab
|
http://email.nikon.co.uk/Pages/Tips/1310/01/Tip-three.aspx |
|||||||||
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. |