VR vs non VR

[daniel_smithson]

<p>Why are people saying that VR is good for fast action wildlife and sports shooting? Once the shutter is half depressed and the VR locks, then if the subject changes it's distance the shutter will have to be released and re-depressed for as long as the subject, (an Eagle in flight) is moving. Does this not make the continuous autofocus setting in the camera impossible? Don't all sports figures move? baseballs travel 100mph.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Daniel, I'm not following your logic here. Are you saying the camera cannot use AF and VR at the same time?</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>By the way, many photographers do not use VR with fast shutter speeds. In other words, some "fast action" shooters do not bother with VR because the shutter speed is quick enough that camera vibration is not a concern. These are just generalities though.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>As far as I can see there is no reason to release and re-depress the shutter button just because the subject is moving (unless you have AF in single shot mode). Just press and hold the shutter button while the continuous AF tracks the subject distance changes and VR reduces camera shake.</p>

<p>With some lenses in certain VR modes, the VR attempts to compensate initially for changes in the speed and direction of turning as you pan and follow the subject by keeping it in the viewfinder. E.g. in lenses which have NORMAL/SPORT VR modes, the SPORT mode should be selected when tracking a moving subject (especially if the movement changes direction and speed often) as in that case the system adopts more quickly to changes in the angular velocity of the camera and lens than VR in NORMAL mode which resists such changes initially. However, those lenses which don't have SPORT mode should have a NORMAL mode which should then be selected (if you want VR). Some people find that VR makes AF slower etc. I noticed this with my F5 and original 70-200/2.8 VR, but with more recent cameras I haven't really found that VR significantly hinders AF. There may be a subtle effect but most of the time I find that having VR on actually makes it easier for me to hold the active AF sensor squarely on the subject and as a result the focus tracking is better and a higher percentage of keepers is obtained. Anyway that's my experience. Most of the time my subjects move on relatively simple trajectories.</p>

<p>There are other reasons to turn VR off, e.g.s it can be at fast shutter speeds (i.e. 1/1000s, 1/2000s etc.) the VR causes slight degradation of image quality. Usually forgetting to turn VR of at fast speed doesn't cause much damage (it may be something that is occasionally perceptible) but for optimal sharpness maybe VR should be off, depending on lens and situation (the AF tracking benefit of a stabilized viewfinder is still valid though). Some people observe the bokeh to be worse when VR is on, but I haven't really seen such an effect to such a degree that I could put a finger on it, usually I find bokeh to be fine on those lenses which have nice bokeh characteristics (VR on or off), but clearly, there isn't universal agreement about it. VR is a technology which is best used when needed and not indiscriminantly. For me it depends on the lens, subject matter, and lighting conditions, whether I turn it on or off.</p>

<p>For tripod use I always keep VR off, but there are some lenses with an explicit TRIPOD mode, which is meant for such situations (those seem to mostly be the fast long superteles). Some have an auto-detect tripod mode without an explicit mode switch position, but at least in my experience having VR on when using most of my lenses on tripod has resulted in slightly reduced image quality, so I keep it off for tripod shots. For monopod use, I find that at least on the 200-500mm Nikkor the VR appears to work nicely. I would recommend that you do your own testing with your equipment so as to determine when you should use VR and when you should possibly turn it off. I guess for faster moving sports, especially if the subject trajectory is unpredictable, VR doesn't help all that much but there are sports where the movement is not that fast and VR can be helpful at shutter speeds which are still fast enough to freeze the movement for the most part. For example sailing is not all that fast but you may sometimes need to use a very long lens to photograph it.</p>

[User_4754088]

<p>On my long lenses, when covering sports, I never use VR. I'm usually shooting above 1/500th of a second, and many times tracking an athlete. In those situations, I find VR worthless.</p>

<p>The one caveat, most of the fasting focusing Nikon lenses, have VR built in. So you just have to turn it off.</p>

[kari_oinonen]

<p>Daniel, are you letting your camera to stay in a mode that is suitable for static subjects - af single shot mode - and you want to use that mode also for moving subjects. Not so good.<br>

Your camera cannot obviously change that mode. You should. For moving subjects af-c not af-s. See what others wrote.<br>

(Referring to at least one recent post by Daniel)<br>

Take your time!</p>

[daniel_smithson]

<p>My AF is always set to continuous autofocus, because my dog typically moves at 18 to 35mph. The 80-400 has never produced a single good shot here, yet the 80-200 never misses more or less. I do not change camera settings when I change lenses. Seriously, there is a reason that there is a VR11, which is the inability of VR</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>Am I missing something in the initial post here? Either I don't understand what is happening, or Mr. Smithson doesn't.</p>

<p>When you press the shutter halfway down, the VR initiates, but it does not lock, does it? </p>

<p>If you have continuous focus and VR on, then will they not both be active until the instant that the shutter is activated? </p>

<p> </p>

[evilsivan]

<p>I believe the conventional wisdom is when shooting a fast moving subject with a fast shutter speed is to NOT use VR. Daniel where did you hear "people saying that VR is good for fast action wildlife and sports shooting?"</p>

[raczoliver]

<p>VR does not lock, and neither does focus if AF-C is selected. You do not have to release the shutter and press it again if the subject changes its distance from the camera. VR stays active as long as the shutter release button is half depressed. It sounds like you are doing something wrong.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>The 80-400 has never produced a single good shot here</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am not surprised - the 80-400 is a rather slow focusing lens, definitely a lot slower than the two-ring 80-200D (if that's the one who have). So it may have issues actually acquiring focus of something that moves quickly and then tracking that subject. Depending on the lighting conditions and the structure of the background, you may never actually get the lens to focus at all.<br>

And if you indeed depress and release and re-depress the shutter button, you are not helping the camera at all but interrupting its focus acquisition every time.</p>

<p>As other pointed out already, VR doesn't lock - it needs a bit of time to settle but once truly active, it will just continue to work as long as you keep that shutter release half pressed. And your AF (in AF-C mode) will continue to track (or at least attempt to) the moving subject.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>A newer lens with AF-S and VR (and preferably a faster maximum aperture) should help with your problem. A dog running towards the camera at high speed is a challenging task for the AF system. For such a fast subject you'd probably not get much benefit out of using VR but with a 300mm or 400mm focal length with sport mode VR it might make it easier to hold the AF sensor on the subject (at least with the very lightweight 300/4 PF I find this to be the case). f/2.8 lenses generally tend to autofocus a bit better than f/4 lenses and f/4 better than f/5.6, and finally the faster lenses (i.e. ones with larger maximum aperture)usually are optically better than the slower ones because they are targeted towards a more demanding/professional buyer. You might give a 300/4 PF a try, although it doesn't zoom, it would AF better than the 80-400.</p>

<p>I don't know which camera you use but if you have one which supports "Group AF" I find that to be helpful for tracking moving subjects.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>The 80-400 has never produced a single good shot here, yet the 80-200 never misses more or less.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>VR isn't the only difference between those two lenses. A rather vital point: one lens is f/4.5-5.6, the other f/2.8. The AF system can use the additional light that the f/2.8 lens supplies quite well to focus more reliably and faster. So, it's no surprise; but it's not the VR that's to blame, instead, simply a slow aperture lens, and as Dieter said, overall a rather slow lens to focus.<br>

I never found focus tracking performance of my 80-200 f/2.8D all that impressive either; it would start hunting often enough, and once hunting, it needed its time.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I think the obvious needs pointing out here. VR does <strong>not</strong> help with subject movement. It compensates for <em>camera motion only</em>. Therefore in normal mode it will also try to compensate for any deliberate panning motion and result in a "staggered" pan. Standard VR is basically only any good for handheld steadying with fairly static subjects. Or if you have a camera platform that's prone to vibration, like a helicopter or moving vehicle.<br>

<br />Some lenses have a VR pan switch that effectively turns off the VR in the X or Y axis, but if the lens doesn't have that facility then the best option is to turn VR off altogether and push the ISO until a suitably high shutter speed can be used. Or use a tripod or monopod.</p>

<p>Personally I think that VR is seen far too much as a panacea for slow lenses and/or low light levels. It's easy to forget about subject movement when that viewfinder image goes rock-steady, but a slow shutter speed is still a slow shutter speed and any subject movement is going to blur.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>VR is activated when you half-press the shutter release. It remains active and does not "lock". Single-servo auto focus locks once the subject is in focus, and will not track the subject if its distance changes. For active subjects, you usually use continuous-servo focus, with or without tracking.</p>

<p>There are two levels of VR - Active and Normal (three including OFF). Active attempts to counter the effect of camera motion in any direction, and will fight attempts to pan. "Normal" is less effective, but will not jerk when you pan with a moving subject</p>

[daniel_smithson]

<p>The simple fact is that of the VR images I have posted, have never even once come near the non VR images that I have posted. That said most of my images are sport type images, even if the athletes are of the animal kingdom. Since these athletes can not be directed to "smile for the birdie and say cheese" VR is a useless tool, and a big waste of money, as my 80-200 can be computer cropped to the same 400 image that the 80-400 produces and be clearer every time. Even though the 200 is a faster lens the image degradation from this pixel increasing should produce a less clear image than the optical 400 image.<br>

Result, VR is useless for sports and wildlife. I have 70mph baseballs frozen at 1/1250 so the seams can be seen with my 80-200, but all I can ever hope to get with VR is a blur at a maximum of 1/500. That said my 80-400 lens produces blur for still images as well. There is a good reason that the 80-200 non VR lens is still made, which is it is simpler and better than the 70-200VR. Some have said I am wrong, but do they take hundreds of photos per minute of eagles, ospreys or hawks in flight at slow handheld shutter speeds, and get crisp images. VR is useless for this <a href="http://leirdal.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/white-tailed-eagle-grabbing-fish-2.jpg">http://leirdal.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/white-tailed-eagle-grabbing-fish-2.jpg</a> anything else said is a lie.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Daniel, I don't understand whether you are asking for help or giving us a lecture.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I have 70mph baseballs frozen at 1/1250 so the seams can be seen with my 80-200, but all I can ever hope to get with VR is a blur at a maximum of 1/500.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's your own fault if you are trying to freeze a 70-mph ball with 1/500s shutter speed. As has been said over and over and over again - VR can do <strong>nothing</strong> to freeze subject motion, it can only reduce the effect of camera shake.</p>

<p>BTW, that last eagle image you linked to was taken a 1/1250s - not what I would call "slow handheld shutter speeds". And no one here ever said that you should turn VR on when shooting fast action - everyone has said exactly the opposite.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>There is a good reason that the 80-200 non VR lens is still made, which is it is simpler and better than the 70-200VR.</blockquote>

 

<p>Well, the 18-200 is still made, but that doesn't make it better than the discontinued 200 f/2 VR mk1 that I own. I'm curious whether the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D actually <i>is</i> "still made"; I don't deny that you can still buy it (although it's not been available in the UK for many years, if ever), but I'd not be surprised if there are large stocks somewhere that are slowly depleting. "Slowly" because nobody with a low-end DX body can use autofocus on it - and the fact it's not available everywhere. If VR was the problem, Nikon would still make the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S. They don't, and the 80-200 AF-D has always (recently) been "good for the price" as an alternative to the 70-200 VR halo lens. With the relatively recent addition of the 70-200 f/4 VR, I'd be surprised if Nikon don't phase the 80-200 out as stocks fall - but obviously I know nothing of Nikon's marketing decisions.<br />

<br />

Really, "my famously slow-to-focus convenience tele-zoom VR lens with completely different specifications has worse AF performance than my relatively-fast-to-focus non-VR lens aimed at journalists, so VR must be the problem" isn't a valid argument. By all means race a 300mm f/2.8 AF-I against a 300mm f/2.8 VR2 and tell me how much VR "hurts performance". Sure, a 28-80 f/3.3-5.6G is blazingly fast to focus on an F5 (since the components that move during AF weigh as much as a paper cup and the F5 screwdriver AF motor could start a small car), but it's not because it lacks VR.<br />

<br />

And yes, I tend to leave VR on most of the time, at least when hand-holding. I value being able to keep the subject framed and the AF point on the eye more than a slight loss of sharpness, though I'm sure there are cases where I'd do otherwise. Subject motion has nothing to do with it.<br />

<br />

Are you trying to persuade yourself that you don't want a 70-200 VR2? There are plenty of other ways to spend the money, including the 80-400 AF-S or the new 200-500, both of which will outfocus your 80-400 AF-D.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>If the procedure you are using is not working, try changing your procedure.</p>

<p>You can take it to the bank that <em>every</em> Nikkor lens is capable of taking excellent photographs.</p>

<p>The 70-200/2.8 VRII is used by sports photographers around the world to produce countless world-class actions shots.</p>

[daniel_smithson]

<p>Why would I want a VR11, when I have a VR that doesn't work? and when my 80-200,2.8D takes photos like this <a href=" and this <a href=" <a href=" <br /> Dan, if you are so sure that every Nikon lens is great, I will sell you a $1500.00 dollar lens, that now sells for $2500.00 for a bargain $1000.00.................. Then you can prove me wrong.</p>

<p>And yes the 80-200 2.8D is still readily available at all retailers. <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/124669-USA/Nikon_1986_AF_Zoom_Nikkor_80_200mm_f_2_8D.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/124669-USA/Nikon_1986_AF_Zoom_Nikkor_80_200mm_f_2_8D.html</a> </p>

[Nick D.]

<p>After reading all of you posts Daniel; If you trying to convince us, that old 70-200/2.8D optically better than 80-400 VR, you don't have to, everybody knows that, it has nothing to do with VR.</p>

[raczoliver]

If you have a lens that works well for you, and one that

doesn't, just use the one that works and sell the one that

doesn't. People are trying to help you, but you don't

seem to want that, so I'm not sure what you are trying to

achieve here.

[daniel_smithson]

<p>Actually what is not right is people saying that VR allows for a better photo when hand holding at slower shutter speeds, but that it can not do this at a higher shutter speed, thus you can't use it and must turn it off, making it dumb to own in the first place. The VR mechanism does the same thing regardless of shutter speed, which is not part of the lens. I could so test with the 80-400 and the 200 both at aperture 5.6, and set the 80-400 to a 200 zoom to make them equal, then redo the test, which will still show the 80-400 to be blurry and inferior. This would not bother me if the lens were clearly broken, but it seems to do everything that it should, except for rendering crisp clear photos.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>VR is awesome when used properly and in the situations that call for it.<br /><br />It is not awesome when used improperly and in situations where it can degrade the image.<br /><br />It's that simple.<br /><br />I like Thom Hogan's explanations of this.<br /><br />http://www.bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm</p>