paul.droluk Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 I know it's not art, but... I just picked up the 70-210VR, and while having lunch in an underground pub I decided to see if this VR stuff was all it's been cracked up to be. I took this shot at 1/4 second @ f2.8, ISO 100, @ 200mm (=300mm). I'll confess to having placed my elbow on the table, but other than that this is a HAND HELD shot! Really astonishing... who would of thunk it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
v.anisimov Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 I find iso 100 @ 300mm rather outlandish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 Well, the point is not whether you got one sharp image or not, as you may simply got lucky once. The question is whether this is reproducable time after time. Try to take the same shot 20 times, for example, all with the same 1/4 shutter speed. I wonder how many of those 20 are sharp. I have done something similar with the 70-200 VR at 1/15 sec and among 5 test shots, the sharpness are all different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josephwalsh Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 Geez...the guy has something rather remarkable to share. He's excited. Parade starts. Rain pours down. Paul, I gotta tell ya, I, for one, am impressed with your VR demo.. That is sharp for 1/4 second...heck, it's sharp for 1/60. Thanks for showing it. Meanwhile, over on Golf.Net an excited member reports making a hole in one. He is then admonished for using the incorrect golf ball and warned that he can't expect a hole in one everytime. Sheesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_skomial Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 1/4 is just pure luck with steady hands. In my experience 1/20 sec pictures are usable in about 50/50 chances. Many will print OK at 4x6", but larger print sizes will reveal blur. In similar shooting conditions, that would require equivalent amount of light, I usually get better pictures shooting 85 at 1.4 (no VR there), and at shutter speed 1/80 (1.4 at 1/80 is about same as 2.8 at 1/20 as far as amount of exposure light is concerned). Though of course pictures at 1.4 are different than at 2.8, e.g. DOF, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank uhlig Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 A true test of the qualities of VR would have been to take the same pic with VR turned off from your elbow. Maybe VR was not really needed? And both types of shots taken 20 times and a short statistic analysis. You were wonderfully in luck, but I doubt I could not take the same elbowed pic without VR. I am happy you are happy, but luck is just that: a bit of dumb luck, maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 I agree with Shun, that a degree of luck is involved. I often shoot at 1/20 (concerts and such) and between camera shake and subject motion not even half are useable. At 200mm and 1/60, I can see some doubling at high magnification, mainly because a D2x is sharp enough to show it. The prints look very sharp at that speed. I disagree with Frank Uhlig, in that VR makes a difference - a BIG difference. It's the difference between 3.5 pounds of ballast and a working lens. Images at 1/60 second are better on the whole than at 1/200 second without VR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_sokal___dallas__tx Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 Paul, I get great results with that lens. I think it's rather astonishing technology. I guess it's possible that during that 1/4 sec you were actually clinically dead, a sort of fleshy tripod and that you came back to life, indeed a bit of good luck. But I've never gotten a motion free photo at 200mm at less than 1/125 (probably higher) with a non-VR lens but get them all the time with the 70-200VR. Now moving subjects is of course an entirely different story. And is that brew as good as the sign suggests? Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 If everybody understood that this shot were like golf's hole in 1 type lucky shot and the original post put things in such a perspective, I wouldn't have said anything. The problem is that unintentionally, this could have been a highly deceptive result, making some people incorrectly think that this was reproducible result one can depend on. If one could reproduce this result 50% of the time, IMO that would be good enough; one simply needs to shoot a few samples, and most likely you'll have some usable images to choose from. However, if this is reproducible only 5% of the time, one lucky shot would be quite meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul.droluk Posted May 22, 2006 Author Share Posted May 22, 2006 Geeez... this s a tough crowd! First let me say that I've only had a chance to pop off two frames, but I'm batting 100%. I'm attaching the other one, shot in the same pub, with the ISO to 400. The exposure was 1/8 second @ f2.8 (this was actually the first shot - I took the second after reviewing this one). Neither shot has been sharpened. I don't know about ya'll, but I've been snapping shutters for over 30 years and this kind of performance was unimagineable (by me anyway) just 5 years ago. Prior to this lens I would never have shot a 300= FL at anything less than 1/125, and my handheld technique is pretty good! I'll obviously be doing more testing, but I'm mega impressed thus far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul.droluk Posted May 22, 2006 Author Share Posted May 22, 2006 I'll try this again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 By no means I am trying to suggest what you can achieve. Experiment it for yourself. Try 20, 30 shots so that you have sufficient samples for some meaningful statistics. Moreover, you need to look at blow ups, as I do with all of my tests. Samll web imsages of the entire frame can also be highly deceptibe. In my case, I have the 70-200mm VR also and if I shoot at 200mm, 1/15 sec, it is kind of hit and miss. But if I take several samples at 1/15 sec, the chance is that I can get a couple of usable samples, and that is good enough for me. 1/4 sec is clearly out of my range. In most situations, the subject can move so that it is mostly a moot point below 1/15 sec anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 It is Murphy's (law) that did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ky2 Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 Does your camera shoot gifs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 "Prior to this lens I would never have shot a 300= FL at anything less than 1/125," Paul, Even if you crop an image from the already cropped APS-C sized sensor (the 70-200 AFSVRGD,etc lens being a full frame lens), 200mm focal length will not go up in value. It still is 200mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_h._hartman Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 <em>I'll confess to having placed my elbow on the table, but other than that this is a HAND HELD shot! Really astonishing... who would of thunk it. --Paul Droluk<br> </em><br> Its no sin to put your elbow on the table. If it works, if its a useful technique then do it. Sit down, lean on a wall or door jamb, breath with care. If you are good enough shoot between heart beats like a champion target shooter. Do whatever it takes.<br> <br> <em>Geez...the guy has something rather remarkable to share. He's excited. Parade starts. Rain pours down. --Joe Walsh<br> </em><br> Even if this cant be achieved every time its sometimes useful to take several shots in the hope of getting one good one. This is done in macro photography where a tripod cant be used. The focus will vary and perhaps 1 in 4 will be tack sharp where it needs to be.<br> <br> Under difficult conditions and with certain subjects a small amount of camera or subject motion is acceptable. If you need the shot you get the best you can. Publication often covers small photographic sins and sometimes larger ones.<br> <br> It would be interesting to know how often this can be achieved. I can certainly see a use for this ability even if its only 1 in 4. Maybe the rain should be only a light sprinkle.<br> <br> Best,<br> <br> Dave Hartman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryan_brenizer Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 Sometimes you get really lucky. The image below was hand-held, no VR, *AT FOUR SECONDS* <a href="http://static.flickr.com/41/93931189_54ff32697e_o.jpg">Full size here</a>.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_skomial Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 "It�s no sin to put your elbow on the table." - absolutely. If you are after steady shot? - forget the table manners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 Ok, here is a test shot with the 70-200mm/f2.8 VR at 1/4 sec and f3.5. The camera is a D2X at ISO 200, hand held with VR on. This is the entire frame. Actually I took about 10 shot hand held with VR, and this is my pick of the best among the 10. The result looks good as a small web image.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 But as people say, the devil is in the details. Here is a comparison among (1) putting the 70-200 on a tripod (Gitzo 1325) with VR off, (2) the "best" hand held shot with VR cropped from the one above and (3) hand held with VR off, also the "best" among 3. Everything was shot at 1/4 sec, f3.5 on a D2X at ISO 200 as above. Clearly VR makes a big different for hand holding, but it still isn't even close to using a tripod. When you hand hold with VR at such slow shutter speeds, you are wasting a lot of the optical quality in your expensive lenses.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 Good post, Shun. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now