Some expert guidance please

[MichaelChang]

<p>Here's my take on VR, and please correct me if you believe it's wrong. </p>

<p>Although VR uses angular velocity sensors to detect camera movement, it really only detects and corrects for instantaneous camera acceleration. For example, a camera has no way of knowing that it's in a car travelling at some velocity, but it's able to detect the car's suspension movement transmitted into the vehicle cabin and compensate for it. </p>

<p>In the case of a steady (and relatively slow) pan, as in the case of boat-tracking from some distance through a long lens, VR will compensate for the camera's jitter relative to a smooth tracking line but not for the boat's rapid bobbing, so if you're somehow able to track the boat perfectly in large sweeping movements, VR should reduce high frequency camera vibrations introduced within the larger pan movement and get a perfectly clear picture of the boat, providing the boat is not exhibiting its own rapid movements. </p>

[steve_congrave]

<p>David :)<br>

<br />I just read the link that you gave to Thom Hogan and to quote him<br /><br />"The following lenses are ones that Nikon NPS has published as having excellent resolution..... Indeed, I'd tend to say these are the best lenses Nikon has produced in terms of optical quality, though I'd probably add the <strong>70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR</strong> to this list."<br>

Now I am even more confused/uncertain :)<br>

I guess I'll be trying to improve my techniques by stopping down (although more than f8 on the D800 seems to introduce diffraction artefacts) and increasing shutter speed dramatically and see what results this relatively inexpensive glass can give me.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure this is an ideal situation for panning </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yup, I hadn't quite realised just <strong><em>how</em></strong> tight a crop this was. It's more landscape than sports action!</p>

<p>That makes these boats worthy of a Paparazzi 600mm f4 or 800mm 5.6 to even get slightly close enough to a frame good enough to see naughty goings on...:-)</p>

<p>If you can't get any closer, we are in the realms of why some people like the crop factor of DX.</p>

<p>One of those experiments of the same lens, say a 300mm f4 AF-S on a far off subject, like this boat, on all three formats. FX, DX and CX and look @ 100% crops. Pixel density and pixel 'quality' would be interesting to see.</p>

<p>Can't remember any more, but I seem to remember the CX has the highest pixel density. Is that still correct?</p>

[steve_congrave]

<p>Yes it was a tight crop - this is the original full frame</p>

<p><img src="http://www.ywip.com/boattestorig.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[steve_congrave]

<p>OK, THANKS to everyone who gave advice. Gave it another try today and ramped the ISO up to 800/1600 and shot with both f5.6 and f8 from 1/1000 to 1/2000 and wow what a difference!<br>

This is one of the shots that I got and I am very happy - shutter speed is the answer as well as stopping down from the fastest aperture.<br>

Again this is a pretty tight crop from a fair distance away but the focus and clarity met my hopes and expectations.<br>

<img src="http://www.ywip.com/photos/ospreysm.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[orcama60]

<p>I am not an expert but I would never use a lens of $500 in a camera like the D800. This high pixel camera requires much better lenses than the Nikon 70-300 and I do agree that 1/250 of speed is not the right speed to stop action. At least 1/500 and for a fast boat, much more than that ( 1/1000 or 1/2000 and perhaps in a sunny day, ISO 100 / 200 max ) ... </p>

[steve_congrave]

<p>I kind of agree Maurice although the last shot of the Osprey did show me that under good conditions you can get some good shots with a $500 lens :)<br>

<br />I have to say also that I am beginning to think that although the D800 is a phenomenal camera, the 36MP sensor still has some way to go - I think it has 36 million 'mediocre' pixels - which in itself is pretty amazing but I believe that as the technology improves we may find new cameras having 36 million 'good' pixels and eventually 36 million 'amazing' pixels.<br>

That's just my 2c and others may not agree.</p>

[steve_congrave]

<p>Ignore my last comment - the image would have looked a heck of a lot better had I realized that I was still set at ISO 1600 - oops :(</p>