Jump to content

1/4 second @ 300mm (70-200VR) Unbelievable but true


paul.droluk

Recommended Posts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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

<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

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>00GfF1-30157584.jpg.1f938e6491bfc4ad853b164c180349a9.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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>00GfFh-30157884.thumb.jpg.60a790f30caecf1f10d32308952ee42e.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...