Nikon VR, does it really work?

S

shakey c

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9
Name
carl shakespeare
Edit My Images
No
Just bought a Nikon 70-200mm, my first VR lens. I get better results with the VR switched off, when its on most of the images are soft no matter what shutter speed I use.
I tried a friends Sigma 170-500mm OS and had the same problem. With both lenses the pictures have noticable camera shake which seems to be caused by the VR/OS system, the image in the viewfider moves during exposure.

Does this technology actually work in the real world or is it a sales ploy?

Or is it me!
 
ITS YOU!!!

Sorry, but its actually a great bit of "technology" and always gains me an extra 2-3 stops of ability handheld.( im canon so its IS not VR, but both systems are the same )

Just a thought, but your not shooting from a tripod are you, as the VR system needs to be off for any tripod work.
 
:shrug:I had the 70-300vr and used it once with the vr on and then without vr ....vr never got used again must be my style of panning
 
if you don't like it you could always leave it off but whatever system you using be it Nikon, Canon or Pentax (or any of the others) they all have limitations but can give excellent results.
 
If you are getting better results with it off then the situation you were using it in did not require VR. :shrug:
 
Dangermouse1964 said:
:...vr never got used again must be my style of panning
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about Nikon's VR sytem, but I do know that Canon has a different forms / versions of IS - earlier IS systems you had to switch off manually if you were using a tripod or panning, later version has a mode 2 switch which allowed for panning and removed vibration / movement in the opposite frame, but again needed manually switching off when using a tripod and a further version, basically was fully automatic for all situations, had an automatic tripod mount detection and allowed panning.

Worth trying to find out what version the Nikon VR system is like and accordingly adjust the VR system. Hope this helps to sort out your problems, as IS / VR systems really do work well :thumbs:
 
Shakey .. once you start hitting higher shutter speeds over 1/250-1/500 on your zoom I would switch it off.

I am sure that is VRII on that lens which will detect if it is on a tripod, however I would always turn it off on a tripod.

Last point are you giving the VR system time to stabilise before firing the shutter.
 
VR is a fantastic piece of technology and really does work.

You have to wait to VR to 'settle' before pressing the shutter all the way.

I get sharp shots at 1/25 @ 250mm with my 70-300VR.
 
I found that with my 70-300 VR it is possible to shoot with a much lower shutter speed (2-3 stops) with VR on. At higher shutter speeds and a shorter focal length lens I have not noticed much difference with it on or off.
 
shakey c said:
Just bought a Nikon 70-200mm, my first VR lens. I get better results with the VR switched off, when its on most of the images are soft no matter what shutter speed I use.
I tried a friends Sigma 170-500mm OS and had the same problem. With both lenses the pictures have noticable camera shake which seems to be caused by the VR/OS system, the image in the viewfider moves during exposure.

Does this technology actually work in the real world or is it a sales ploy?

Or is it me!
Click to expand...

It must be me as well then - I have had my 70-200 for about 2 years and feel the same way.
 
shakey c said:
Just bought a Nikon 70-200mm, my first VR lens. I get better results with the VR switched off, when its on most of the images are soft no matter what shutter speed I use.
I tried a friends Sigma 170-500mm OS and had the same problem. With both lenses the pictures have noticable camera shake which seems to be caused by the VR/OS system, the image in the viewfider moves during exposure.

Does this technology actually work in the real world or is it a sales ploy?

Or is it me!
Click to expand...


Can't speak for the 70-200 VR since I don't have one but I can say that the VR on the 70-300 works very well. I'm not sure that the 170-500 Sigma has OS. In fact, I know it hasn't, since I part exchanged mine against the 150-500 OS - again, the stabilisation works very well.

The only thing I can think is that you're using VR/OS while the camera is mounted on a tripod or otherwise supported too rigidly - in situations like that, the stabilisation can adversely affect sharpness.

As a final point, how can you tell that the image is moving in the viewfinder during exposure - the mirror will be up so the viewfinder will be blacked out during the exposure...
 
Yes it does...in both active and normal modes...allows hand-held speeds down to about 60th sec at 200mm on my 70-200 and even slower if i'm very careful.
 
It's a tool which is useful in some situations and unnecessary in others.
 
geoffd70 said:
It must be me as well then - I have had my 70-200 for about 2 years and feel the same way.
Click to expand...

Yup make that x3.

If you want a nice soft image set the VR switch to "ON"

And no, its not because I am some kind of retard or "don't understand VR" or even that I haven't worked out it doesn't come on if you are using the AF-ON button....

Canon's IS works, Nikon VR just doesn't.

Think thats the only time I've found something Canon does better so far!
 
you guys must be doing something wrong then because I get pin-sharp images with mine...
 
Only tested handheld, you can tell the image has moved its in a slightly different place when the mirror returns.
Glad I am not the only one who is not too impressed, as I am looking for a longer lens I probably wont bother with VR now and can save a few pennies!

P.S desantnik how does the 1.7x TC perform?
 
I have had the same issues sometimes with my 55-200 VR, some shots just not sharp. Pics have been handheld but still appear to shake. Others have been pin sharp as it's a good lens for the money. I think it must just be in some situations it just doesn't suit it.

I have the 70-300 VR too and I have never had the same issue with that. That said, I haven't used it as extensively as the 55-200 so maybe I just haven't been in an unsuitable situation.
 
desantnik said:
Yup make that x3.

If you want a nice soft image set the VR switch to "ON"

And no, its not because I am some kind of retard or "don't understand VR" or even that I haven't worked out it doesn't come on if you are using the AF-ON button....

Canon's IS works, Nikon VR just doesn't.

Think thats the only time I've found something Canon does better so far!
Click to expand...

You need some strong factual evidence for a statement like that to have any credibility whatsoever. Assuring us that you are not in fact a retard may not be sufficient in this case.
 
HoppyUK said:
You need some strong factual evidence for a statement like that to have any credibility whatsoever. Assuring us that you are not in fact a retard may not be sufficient in this case.
Click to expand...


Ouch... :woot:I mean I was thinking the same, but you beat me to it - I'm supposed to be the 'Soft and Cuddly' one on here... :lol:

Like I say I have no problems using the VR facility on my 70-200, so I was thinking it was more a case of pilot-error than a fault in the VR-system, which a lot of other pro-photographers use very successfully...I think I'd have heard by now from my colleagues if it was as crap as is being suggested by some on here...
 
HoppyUK said:
You need some strong factual evidence for a statement like that to have any credibility whatsoever. Assuring us that you are not in fact a retard may not be sufficient in this case.
Click to expand...

Go on then, what would you like in the way of factual evidence...

I've never actually bothered to trial it in anything like a scientific way, the basis for that statement was that I've used Canon gear for several years with IS lenses almost all of the time. I took tens of thousands of images with IS enabled, tried IS off and could see a definite drop in my hit rates.

Moved to Nikon last year, started out with VR enabled and thought my brand new shiny Nikon gear had something wrong with it. Followed the advice of two of my friends (both of whom are prolific photographers with high end gear), disabled VR, never looked back. The combo of 70-200VR and D300 gives near faultless results with VR turned off.

Occasionally I try switching it back on again, still no improvement.

The thing is, IMHO I am more than capable of getting a sharp shot, why does VR f*** it up? I'm not actually doing anything different....

I wondered whether there is some kind of design envelope that VR is designed to work in that is not documented anywhere. I mean, how long does it take to start up? Does it shut down if the shutter speed is too high? Can it actually stabilise horizontal AND vertical movements simulataneously?
 
It works better at low shutter speeds...otherwise why turn it on?
I generally find that if I'm hand-holding below 60th at 70mm I need to turn it on and below 125th at 200mm...

I have not used Canon's system so I'm not qualified to comment on them, but I do know Nikon inside and out, having been involved in some of the development work on the VR system (in the form of extensive testing and feedback - sorry: can't tell you where or why).

I can say that it doesn't work if supported in any way - it has to be used hand-held, unsupported... it works better on lenses with shorter zoom-ranges than with longer zoom ranges, so a 70-200 is good whereas a 70-300-ish wouldn't be so good...

You have to pick the right tools for the job in other words - there's no 'magic bullet' lenses here...
 
Static or moving subjects are we talking about here?
 
Both...from both static and moving platforms - cars and helicopters...
 
Well, I have some time it seems this afternoon and my camera gear is all ready to go for tommorow so I'll try and do some testing a bit later - maybe something scientific ;-)

Its only going to be static subjects (and static me too, I'm not running around in this heat!)

I'll go with your suggestions of below 1/60th at 70mm and below 1/125th at 200mm - I don't think I'm any better than that, so it should be quite obvious if its working!

I could even get out the old 30D and try the same with the trusty 70-300IS for comparison.
 
Try going very slow as well - 15th and lower - see the difference with it on and off and in active and passive modes...
 
I doubted it to begin with but swear by it now, 70-200VR by the way. :thumbs:
 
Ok, test #1:

Using D300, 70-200VR, 9 focus points, continuous focus mode, centre focus point with focus assist points active, 50 shots at 200mm at 1/100th (well under the rule of thumb for hand holdability and right into the territory this should work at). Squeezing single shots off in continuous low drive mode, looking to the focus confirmation light each time.

Comparing in lightroom at 100% view

VR off # Sharp: 21/50

VR on # Sharp: 28/50

Obviously my opinion of "sharp" is not scientific, but I'm using the same subjectiveness I do when I pick out my shots of anything else...

Maybe for static subjects it does work then.... or maybe I got my eye in as I shot the second lot with VR on... anyway, so far I am proving myself wrong :D This bit can't be scientific because you might be better than me (I wouldn't say I am good with slow shutter stuff anyway), but feel free to post your own results - it would be interesting.

Just for scientific completness, here is my test photo subject :

vrtest.jpg


PS I don't want C&C on my composition there thanks :D
 
Got to say that although I'm a real steady sod - as my rifle range buddies once commented on to their intense surprise - VR does indeed work for me on my D2Xs & 70-200 VR, as I've had occasion to use it as low as 1/30th @ 200mm with acceptable results for album use

At the 1/over rule I do turn it off though for speed of focusing

DD
 
Test #2

Setup as before, only at 70mm and 1/40th, once again below the "rule" for holdability.

VR off # Sharp: 25/50

VR on # Sharp: 23/50

Ok, I am sick of looking at photos of that matryoshka now :D

What I really need to do is to test it on moving subjects, because that is what I normally shoot and what my experience to date is from.

I'll try and give that a go tommorow....
 
In my honest opinion I don't think it is really usefull at all (in my work, and the conditions I'm in) I have bought the 70-200 f2,8 prime nikkor lens, without the VR they are 1,200, the newer, VR version costs over 2,000 !

I mean, if you can afford it get it, if you are doing photojournalism and you get suck in photo spots where you have to blind shot pictures over your head, Vr is certainly usefull in longer focal lenghts and lens which has a lot of bulk.

Otherwise I just use a monopod in 20-60th of a sec exposures, and a tripod anything below a 20th of a second,

VR won't be any usefull with moving subjects, unless maybe you are indoor shooting sports.

I guess it's a matter of what kind of photography you do, then it will come more or less usefull for you, budget wise, I go for non VR Version and I get really sharp shots.
 
Maxathos said:
VR won't be any usefull with moving subjects, unless maybe you are indoor shooting sports.
Click to expand...

not sure I agree with that one, Ive used it for some 1/30th pans that I know I wouldnt have got without VR turned on.
 
Well, Canon's IS definitely does work for panning... the VR I shall be testing tommorow!
 
Maxathos said:
VR won't be any usefull with moving subjects, unless maybe you are indoor shooting sports.
Click to expand...


:nono: Not true,..................VR works for me using the 300mm 2.8, and with a 1.4TC attached (420mm), I shoot prop planes at 1/160 with excellent results

You need to give VR time to work/spin up
 
i had the 55-200 VR, VR was brill
I now have the 70-300 VR, VR is brill
My dad has the 70-22 VR, VR is brill

Its you. There is nothing wrong with VR
 
Maxathos said:
In my honest opinion I don't think it is really usefull at all (in my work, and the conditions I'm in) I have bought the 70-200 f2,8 prime nikkor lens, without the VR they are 1,200, the newer, VR version costs over 2,000 !

I mean, if you can afford it get it, if you are doing photojournalism and you get suck in photo spots where you have to blind shot pictures over your head, Vr is certainly usefull in longer focal lenghts and lens which has a lot of bulk.

Otherwise I just use a monopod in 20-60th of a sec exposures, and a tripod anything below a 20th of a second,

VR won't be any usefull with moving subjects, unless maybe you are indoor shooting sports.

I guess it's a matter of what kind of photography you do, then it will come more or less usefull for you, budget wise, I go for non VR Version and I get really sharp shots.
Click to expand...

I've found it to be very good with moving subjects...very, very good...
Both with me shooting from static positions (hides) and from moving vehicles (helicopter doorways and out the side of C-130's doing low passes over the targets...

Also in low-light conditions where both my movement and the subject movement is fast and unpredictable (er...war-fighting).
Just because you or anyone doesn't find to be a useful tool, that isn't to say that it doesn't work. You may not find it useful, but other might well do. The point of this thread was to determine whether it works, not whether you necessarily need it... Individuals can make that decision by the kind of subjects they shoot...

Maybe it is as a result of weapons training - applying the 'marksmanship principles' -lol...
 
Are you saying that you will actually get better results with the VR turn off when using a tripod even if you are taken shots of flying birds etc?

Newbie question!

thanks

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