VR or not VR

I noticed camera shake effect in my images taken with D800 and Nikon 24-120 f4 lens. On investigating found VR has failed but it got good again later. Recently I purchased D750 and was using it with the same lens. Again VR failed but this time permanently. Repair was not economical so I changed the way I photograph by using high shutter speed and tripod when light was low. My images were never as good as now. Everything is crisp sharp near and far. I will try to avoid using VR again when ever possible but I realise in some situation it will be advantage.

VR or IBIS is greatly overestimated, it is should be used as last resort, when light is low and you can't get fast enough shutter speed to mitigate camera movement and tripod is not available. It is the same as higher ISO numbers, it is trade off, you get faster shutter speed at the expense of higher noise and decreased dynamic range.

Skills are far better than technology. VR is good in a crunch, but I never rely on it. I amaze myself when I walk out of my house with my fm2n and my 70-300 ED (non vr) lens. The camera and lens are light and I tend to shoot right.

VR ... is greatly overestimated, it is should be used as last resort

 

This is vastly different from my experience with Image Stabilization on Canon lenses.

 

Given competition, I find it hard to believe that Nikon VR is technologically inferior, so is there some underlying flaw in practice here (e.g., leaving older VR on when on tripod)?

 

Certainly, any implemention of IS only works in its design range, but I used to have the first Canon one (Canon EF 75-300mm IS, 1995); and it worked well enough to make a better than usual consumer product.

Edited January 3, 2019 by JDMvW

VR/IS is a tool that has to be used properly.

 

One thing that it seems MANY people forget, is that VR/IS stabilizes the motion of the camera/lens, NOT the subject.

So if you shoot a building, at 1/15 sec, it will stabilize and give you a sharp picture of the building.

But add a walking person, and you have a sharp building but a blurred person. So ANYTHING that moves could be blurred.

 

You also have to be within the stabilization limits of the VR, the lens and you. VR isn't a magic wand to allow you to shoot at 2 seconds and get sharp images. Depending on the focal length, maybe down to 1/f - 3 stops. And it is not a guarantee; the slower the shutter speed, the lower the keepers. So, the slower you shoot, the more shots you should take, to increase the chances of getting a sharp image.

In my experience, when shooting static subjects handheld, with or without VR, at a shutter speed high enough to counteract my bodily motion but not much higher, I can always observe some blur on a pixel level that is due to mirror slap and/or shutter shock. The only way I know to completely avoid this camera-induced motion blur is either to shoot in MUp mode with EFCS, or to use a shutter speed whose denominator is at least three times the focal length of the lens (e.g., 1/160 sec for a 50mm lens). VR does not seem to help me at all in avoiding this high-frequency, camera-induced motion blur. It's probably not designed to.

How slow shutter speeds were you using with VR?

 

Although VR can technically break down, and may not work correctly in all circumstances, when the VR unit works correctly, I find it that it's useful for stabilizing telephoto lenses and makes it easier to operate them hand held. However, it's good to remember that if a tripod and/or fast shutter speeds can be used, those are superior to hand-holding at questionable speeds with VR.

Without image stabilization (IS), camera shake at the traditional shutter speed of 1/f will effectively limit resolution to 6 MP. In order to get nearly full use of a 24 MP sensor, you would need a shutter speed of 1/3f or faster. With stabilization, you can use 1/f with confidence, and 2 or 3 stops slower, depending on the subject.

 

Lenses for cameras I use, Nikon and Sony, tend to have optical image stabilization only in longer focal lengths. For landscapes, family picture and an occasional wedding or event, I use lenses 50 mm or less, for which in-body image stabilization (IBIS) is hig hly effective. It is trendy to remind us that IS will not freeze subject motion, but even fast action (i.e., basketball) has many moments where there is little motion (peak of action), whereas camera shake is always with us, averaging about 2 deg/sec.

 

Image stabilization is ineffective against relatively slow disturbances, like shooting video on the move. A gimbal or steady-cam rig is used under those circumstances. In-body image stabilization starts to break down for lenses as short as 85 mm, without optical stabilization (OS), and for closeups with or without OS. Optical stabilization is more effective for tilt and yaw than IBIS, the longer the lens. IBIS is more effective for rotation and translation than OS. The combination is highly effective throughout.

 

Image stabilization will never replace tripods, strobes and faster shutter speeds, but those needs are increasingly marginalized.

The 24-120 f/4 VR is stuck on my D800 most of the time, and is a somewhat recent "upgrade" from the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 VR(that now is sort of pair with my D600, although when I'm out with both bodies I tend to keep an UW zoom on that camera).

 

In any case, I find that VR helps me with most any lens and lets me handhold and get sharp images of stationary subjects probably 1-2 stops lower than I'd be able to get by handhold. At the long end of the 24-120, I can almost always get sharp results down to 1/60 and 1/45 or even 1/30 isn't out of reach. At the wide end, 1/15 is almost always doable-again on a stationary subject.

 

My 70-200 f/2.8 VR I is very usable at 1/125 at 200mm, and 1/45 is easy at 70mm. There again, if I'm doing things right, I can get a stop or two better than this.

 

I should also mention that my hands aren't overly steady, and I can often only get sharp results at about half the time using the inverse focal length rule. With a 50mm lens, for example, I try to keep the shutter speed to 1/125 or faster whenever possible. So, 1/125 at 200mm really is more like a "2 stop improvement" for me.

 

Going back to the 24-120 f/4-I know that we're always cautioned to turn off VR on a tripod, and I do this whenever I remember to. Back before Christmas, I spent a fair bit of time setting up a night time shot with my D800 and that lens with a 30 second exposure. I ended up with 4 frames(I did a few tweaks on all of them) but was thinking about so many other things that I stupidly forgot to shut off VR. Going over them with a fine toothed comb, I could not see ANY issues from using VR, and in fact I'm picking up a 16x20 print of the best one tomorrow.

This image is out of the camera with no adjustments other then reducing the size for posting. It was taken hand held with D750 and 24-120 f4 at 1/2000s f/5.6 and ISO auto 160. VR was not working. The image is sharp, the birds at different distances were still well defined. The image gives impression that birds are cut outs stuck there.

I am wondering if VR did work at such high shutter speed would the result be the same or less. At what shutter speed VR no longer matters and should not be used. If it is recommended VR should be disabled when using tripod it must have effect the quality. Where is the cut off point for shutter speed when VR no longer perform and when quality is impacted. I needed broken VR to learn something new.

 

It was absolutely necessary to turn VR off when using the first version of a Nikon 70-200/2.8 lens. The center would usually wander slowly, then something in the mechanism would jerk at the moment of exposure, causing a noticeable blur. 15 years later, it doesn't seem to matter much, but it does matter some. I often see a doubling at the pixel level with Nikon or Sony, which goes away if I turn IS off.

 

The effect is mixed with video. On one hand, IS suppresses tremors caused by shaky floors, moving the camera or bumping the tripod. On the other, centering lags when you pan or tilt the lens. I generally opt for the latter, and cope by cutting to B-roll in post-processing. It doesn't take much to shake the camera when zoomed out to nearly 600 mm (equivalent).

Generally it is recommended to turn off VR at shutter speeds faster than 1/500s

I use VR even for FAST shutter speeds, as it helps to stabilize the image so that I can more easily hold on the subject. I generally use single point AF for sports, due to the close proximity of other players to my subject. VR helps me to keep that one AF point on MY subject, rather than have it wobble off my subject, as it would without VR. So in this case, I am using the VR to assist in aiming the lens, not for slow speed shooting.

 

The longer the lens, the more magnification you have, and the more VR assists in the aiming of the lens and holding the subject.

 

You have to understand how VR works, its limitations, and how it will help in different situations, not blindly use a general recommendation.

 

In the case of the wide pix above, at 1/2000 sec, VR on or off would probably not make any difference.

I often see a doubling at the pixel level with Nikon or Sony, which goes away if I turn IS off.

Canon in the same boat too, VR or IS introducing movement on it's own when compensating for camera shake. It is more noticeable in out of focus backgrounds, sometimes it is not just on pixel level. By design it is trying to keep focus point sharp, but out of focus backgrounds clearly showing motion blur.

I just read "All about Nikon VR" by Thom Hogan. This confirms to me that I was doing it all wrong all this years. Have VR off unless needed and then avoid need by use of tripod. I always used VR if lens had it. It took broken VR to make me realise that now my images are so much better. There must be a reason best pro lenses do not have VR.

There must be a reason best pro lenses do not have VR.

 

Actually, all of Nikon's f/2.8 pro zooms except for the 14-24, along with all of their primes 300mm and longer(up to the 800mm f/5.6 at $16K new) have VR.

 

The only place you don't REALLY see it is in primes in the normal to short tele range, although the 105mm f/2.8 Micro is an exception to that.

 

I agree with Thom Hogan most of the time, but his VR article is also quite old and newer generations of VR have improved considerably from when it first started becoming common. One of the first reasonably common lenses to get VR was the 70-200 f/2.8 way back in 2003, and now that I own the lens I can definitely see the difference between that early lens and even second generation VR, much less the more modern lenses.

 

Also, I understand the reasoning behind turning off VR on a tripod, and I normally do it. I was just commenting that even when I stupidly didn't do it, it didn't cause any ill effects in the 24-120 f/4....and the 16x20 I had done of that image looks superb BTW. I suspect that it might even help you if you're using a rickety tripod, but since I junked all of mine a while back I can't test that(my current main one is a set of lower end Manfrotto CF legs under an Arca-Swiss B1, and I'm planning to get a set of Gitzo CF legs sometime this year to pair with the B1 once I make heads or tails of what tripod I need).

Most of my lenses have VR. I use longer focal length lenses like 300mm and 500mm lenses more than the shorter ones. Here is what I do mostly learned from my own failed shots and shots that are very sharp. Lens mounted on a tripod, VR is turned to Off. Lens on a monopod, VR is turned on, but the VR mode selected depends on the lens and other shooting conditions. I find that "less VR" when it is On works better. That means that I will normally use the Sport mode rather than Normal. This latter rule definitely applies to the new Nikon 500mm f 5.6 PF. When I use VR, I select Sport mode for this lens. Regarding shutter speeds, I usually turn off VR at around 1/500 sec. It is definitely set to Off if I am shooting at 1/1000 or faster. Again other shooting conditions can affect the rules. For shorter focal length lenses in good light, I usually set it to off as it provides little benefit. If light is poor, i set it to Normal. The best advice I can giver is to experiment and find out what works best for you. When I am doing landscapes I try and use a tripod. Then VR is off and usually AF is off too as I focus manually. This forces me to make sure I have picked the spot I want to be in sharpest focus. I get lazy with AF points that are often set to the wrong place. (That is my error not the camera's).

I use VR because I have to. I have a neuromuscular condition and need all the help I can get for sharp images. The tripod is a great tool but not very useful if you're walking the streets or photographing people in a casual environment. I use a tripod every time I go out for scenic/landscape pictures and of course I don't use VR for this kind of photography.