Nikon VR

Brom

Brom

Suspended / Banned
Messages
97
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Above 1/100 sec. I always turn VR off, as I believe, with faster shutter speeds, it's not necessary. Today, I left it on by mistake (a senior moment :) ) and the images I took were not as sharp as usual.
Before I go out and take dozens of pictures with VR on and off to try and prove it to myself, has anybody else noticed this, or is it down to me or the lens?
Any thoughts much appreciated.

David.
 
I haven't noticed this, and of course there's a number of factors that could cause it. Plus I wouldn't use 1/100 as the cut off point, it should be at least 1/focal length.
 
VR on at 1/100th should be absolutely fine and extremely unlikely to be the cause of lack of sharpness :)
 
Hmm, only ever switch VR off on a tripod, never realised how good it was till I got a non VR lens and had to improve my technique
 
Thanks folks.
The lens in question is a Nikkor AF-S 28-300mm 3.5-5.6 G VR, it's my 'everyday' lens you might say.
I did some experimenting today with it and photos taken with VR on are much softer than with VR off. I tried the same thing with my new 80-400 and everything was fine. Sooo...it would seem to be a problem with the lens, it is quite old so maybe it's time to retire it.
David.
 
Normally, the guidelines state that VR is not effective when shutter speeds are faster than 1/500th sec.
Odd it should happen at 100th.
 
GHP said:
Normally, the guidelines state that VR is not effective when shutter speeds are faster than 1/500th sec.
Odd it should happen at 100th.
Click to expand...
Didn't know that. Does that mean that you should turn it off, or that it just won't add any benefit? I leave mine on all the time and never suffered any issues tbh, even at shutter speeds of 1/2000
 
snerkler said:
Didn't know that. Does that mean that you should turn it off, or that it just won't add any benefit? I leave mine on all the time and never suffered any issues tbh, even at shutter speeds of 1/2000
Click to expand...

No, I always leave it on. There is a big debate around this though, mostly hypothetical due to lack of evidence, but the theory is that it may make things worse, or possibly better!

The benefit of a stabilised viewfinder image with long lenses is often helpful though at all shutter speeds.
 
GHP said:
If you look around the internet there are as many fors as againsts.
All purely anecdotal though.
As said though, a stabilised viewfinder image is a plus.

Here's Thom Hogan's take on it, if you haven't seen it:

http://www.bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm

And here's Nikon's:

http://www.nikon.com/about/technology/rd/core/software/vr_e/
Click to expand...

That Thom Hogan article makes the case for turning IS/VR off at certain critical speeds. but it's years old and he has never supplied any supporting evidence.

It's actually very hard to prove that IS/VR may be detrimental at higher speeds, one way or the other. It's easy to prove the undoubted and enormous advantage at longer shutter speeds, but not the reverse. Basically you have to take hundreds of pictures with and without IS/VR, analyse them all carefully, then see which is better based on average scores. One-off images prove nothing.

I've tried to do that, with Canon (Thom H is only referencing Nikon) but gave up after it became clear that whatever Thom's theory might suggest, there is far more likelihood of a rogue element of human error creeping in and spoiling things than there is of IS/VR misbehaving.
 
Interesting debate for sure, but I've not seen any ill effects from using VR, VC or whatever IS I've used so will just continue to use it all the time (unless on a tripod ;))
 
Interesting, but,as already highlighted, quite old and nothing conclusive either way.
I use it and don't think about it too much TBH.
As they say,"If it ain't broke etc. "
 
i had simular issues with my 70-300 dx vr 11 tend to keep it off now
 
snerkler said:
Interesting debate for sure, but I've not seen any ill effects from using VR, VC or whatever IS I've used so will just continue to use it all the time (unless on a tripod ;))
Click to expand...

GHP said:
Interesting, but,as already highlighted, quite old and nothing conclusive either way.
I use it and don't think about it too much TBH.
As they say,"If it ain't broke etc. "
Click to expand...

The counter argument for leaving IS/VR on is based on the fact that camera-shake never goes away, it is just reduced, either with faster shutter speeds or with IS/VR that keeps on working at all speeds. My point is this reduction can often mean the difference between blurred and acceptable sharpness, even when the TH theory says you should be better off without it, especially with long 400mm-plus lenses where you'll often be around the Tom Hogan critical speeds. This is easy to prove. The upsides far outweigh any hypothetical downsides.
 
I've not tested sharpness specifically in this way. Its been fine for me with and without. With, it gets the shots I couldn't take without.
My thinking is coming from the other end. If I turn it off when I don't need it then its doing less work overall.
Therefore less wear and tear.
Therefore more life outside of the repair shop.
Whether or not thats true, I guess you'll need to ask an engineer/repair tech.
 
Deadlock said:
I've not tested sharpness specifically in this way. Its been fine for me with and without. With, it gets the shots I couldn't take without.
My thinking is coming from the other end. If I turn it off when I don't need it then its doing less work overall.
Therefore less wear and tear.
Therefore more life outside of the repair shop.
Whether or not thats true, I guess you'll need to ask an engineer/repair tech.
Click to expand...

That's the most unusual reasons I've heard for turning it off!

It saves battery power though ;) Actually quite a lot of power if you're in the habit of keeping your finger half-pressed for long periods, as say some sports photographers are. That's part of the thinking behind Canon's Mode-3 IS operation that's only active during the actual exposure.
 
I read the Thom Hogan article sometime ago and must admit I took heed of it without really questioning the evidence or looking into it myself. I guess a reasonable lesson here is that if you don't notice any issues one way or another, who cares?

One thing that has got me pondering though is the relationship between shutter speed and sampling rate. The Nikon link above suggests that the sampling rate of VR is 1/1000. Does that in turn mean that VR cannot be effective at shutter speeds above that since it would have no time to make any adjustment?... Doesn't neccessarily mean it'll degrade IQ either of course.
 
gad-westy said:
I read the Thom Hogan article sometime ago and must admit I took heed of it without really questioning the evidence or looking into it myself. I guess a reasonable lesson here is that if you don't notice any issues one way or another, who cares?

One thing that has got me pondering though is the relationship between shutter speed and sampling rate. The Nikon link above suggests that the sampling rate of VR is 1/1000. Does that in turn mean that VR cannot be effective at shutter speeds above that since it would have no time to make any adjustment?... Doesn't neccessarily mean it'll degrade IQ either of course.
Click to expand...

Yes, the TH theory all hangs on the sampling frequency. I don't know if all manufacturers use a similar frequency (I've only ever heard mention of this with Nikon, not Canon) or if Nikon has changed/improved it - quite likely I'd guess, certainly if there is any truth in this at all.

All I would say is, the benefits of IS/VR are massive and undisputed, and easy to prove. The hypothetical downsides are very difficult to prove, as you never know if any reduced sharpness is down to a rogue moment of increased camera shake (happens frequently when you're on the limit), or maybe some system interference. The only way is to take hundreds of test pictures, with and without stabilisation, assess them all carefully looking for tiny differences, and see what the average scores tell you. Then do it all a couple of times more to verify the test procedure.

Also, in amongst all those test pictures there will be some that are still improved by IS/VR, and quite a lot of them when the hand-holding limit coincides with the critical frequency - using a 400mm lens for example. That's easy to prove, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top