VR vs non VR

[Mary Doo]

<p>Re VR1 VRII etc. </p>

<p>As someone mentioned, it appears to be a versioning method to differentiate a lens from its previous version. There is no prior version for the 200-500mm.</p>

<p>Daniel, are you all set with your 80-400's focus quesiton?</p>

 

[daniel_smithson]

<p>There you go again (to quote Reagan) every time someone has an important photo to take, they have to turn off the VR. I hate to be redundant, but if you had to turn off your CPU or hard drive to use your computer, there would be a problem. The fact is that anything you need to turn off in order before you take a photo with a camera lens, should not be there in the first place. And here is what makes it worse than impossible, while you are looking for the switch and turning it off, the shot just left town. You need to be ready when the shot happens, not turning stuff off, in order for the camera to work. It's a con.</p>

<p> </p>

[daniel_smithson]

<p>Links and message displayed below. <a href=" <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/136279335@N04/22607791828/in/photostream/lightbox/">https://www.flickr.com/photos/136279335@N04/22607791828/in/photostream/lightbox/</a><br /> Just to be positive for a change, VR is needed for nothing in photography. Except doubling profits to corporations.<br /> <br /> PS. I just bought a Nikon 50mm1.4G, no VR, the lens is stunning as the above photos detail.............</p>

<p> </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>VR II is now old tech, it gives you about 3.0-3.5 stops in the CIPA test, depending on the lens. The 200-500's VR is more advanced than that and tests the equivalent of 4.5 stops of advantage in the same test.. In the 200-500 page you linked to, Nikon state "~4.5 stops of Vibration Reduction with Sports mode". The VR of the 200-500 is highly regarded among its users, as far as I can tell.</p>

<p>The 16MP D4s is a specialist tool intended for professional use in journalism, sports photography, high speed wildlife photography, events etc. in circumstances where the camera's speed, workflow efficiency in post-processing, and high ISO image quality, and ruggedness are highly valued and the resolution is typically sufficient for newspaper, magazine publication and print sizes typically needed for weddings etc. If the pro needs more resolution they use another camera such as D810 or D750, D7200 (or their predecessors) which benefits from the high volume consumer interest leading to lower prices. The D4s is such a specialist camera that it would never gather as much interest from consumers to allow production volumes like those of the D810, thus it will always be expensive. It also has certain features that interest professional users such as voice annotation, extremely rugged contstruction, better resistance to harsh weather, better ergonomics for all-day use etc. which add to the cost but do not in general interest consumers to the point that they'd pay extra money for it. Thus it is up to small number of specialists to pay for the research, development, production and sales of that camera. Quite a lot of people would regard e.g. the D750 a better camera for less money, which it may be for many who don't need the features specific the D4s and who prefer a smaller camera.</p>

<p>The D810 is also kind of specialized but its feature set is very popular among both professionals and consumers so it can be made for a lower price than the D4s.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>There you go again (to quote Reagan) every time someone has an important photo to take, they have to turn off the VR. I hate to be redundant, but if you had to turn off your CPU or hard drive to use your computer, there would be a problem. The fact is that anything you need to turn off in order before you take a photo with a camera lens, should not be there in the first place. And here is what makes it worse than impossible, while you are looking for the switch and turning it off, the shot just left town. You need to be ready when the shot happens, not turning stuff off, in order for the camera to work. It's a con.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Daniel, Daniel, Daniel...<br /><br />No offense, but it really sounds like you're blaming the gear.<br /><br />The other night I shot a dimly lit concert. If I leave the camera settings alone the next time I go out and shoot a landscape, I'm probably going to be disappointed. One setting doesn't work for every photo on any serious camera, sir. It never will (unless you are okay with a smartphone camera kind of photography). For instance, Aperture priority is key for some things, where Shutter priority and Auto-ISO might be better for something else, where Manual might be best for other things. Continuous AF is best sometimes, and Single AF is best others. So it makes perfect sense for the user to learn and know when VR is best to use and when it is not, and therefore have the setting the way it would be best before the shot happens.<br /><br />I suggest taking the time to learn the gear really well, and what it can do, rather than what you might wish it could do, the way it is designed, and not the way you wish it were. And while you're at it, I highly suggest you abandon the "photo taking modes" (like "sports mode") in your camera and stick with P, A, S, and M... that way you'll really learn better, I suspect, when one mode is best and when another is. That will help you a lot. You'll miss a bunch of shots now... but you'll miss very very few later on.<br /><br />With regard to my computer... EXCELLENT analogy. If I"m working on a Word document, I might not mind having 10 other programs open in the background, but if I am doing pro Audio recording or video editing, quitting all those open programs might be best.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Ilkka and I were cross posting... ignore everything I wrote if you want... and just read that post above mine.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>Daniel, are you all set with your 80-400's focus issue?</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>

<p>Daniel, Daniel, Daniel...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Quite. This is one of the most informed and helpful communities I have ever found on the net. We are trying to help you, both with your original question that appeared to be about whether you should upgrade your 80-200, and in resolving some misapprehensions that you seem to have about terminology. You seem to have some trouble hearing us, to the extent that I'm beginning to wonder whether you're trolling or deliberately spreading misinformation for mischief. I choose to give you the benefit of the doubt and that we're somehow failing to explain why your statements, while they may apply in part to your particular experience in the discontinued 80-400 AF-D, are not generally correct. One more try. But first:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Then again they are still selling a 16mp camera for $6,000.00, which is really sad.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm sorry, but that's really showing ignorance. Are you suggesting that megapixel count is the main distinguishing feature of a camera? Why then would Nikon have the D3x00, D5x00 and D7x00 ranges, all of which have had at least two generations at 24MP. The D4s is intended for sports and journalism, for which the ability to fill a double-page spread at decent detail is typically "enough resolution" and a reduced pixel count allows for an increased frame rate and buffer depth, and facilitate processing and transmitting large numbers of images. The larger sensor sites also contribute to the high ISO handling of the camera. Canon's competition, the 1Dx, has "only" 18MP. While I'm not saying the resolution won't increase in the D4s's successor, there was simply no demand for more pixels for the typical uses of the camera. If you're trying to shoot fine art wall-filling prints, you shouldn't be using a D4s. When I've submitted images to newspapers, they've been limited to around 1-2MB; starting with 36MP did me no good at all.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>PS. I just bought a Nikon 50mm1.4G, no VR, the lens is stunning as the above photos detail......</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm happy for you, although I've never been impressed by the price-performance of the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 lenses. I note that it's eight times less prone to camera shake than a 400mm, of course. Which is largely why there aren't many VR lenses this short.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There you go again (to quote Reagan) every time someone has an important photo to take, they have to turn off the VR</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Where on earth did that idea come from? VR does not freeze subject motion, but it does decrease hand shake, which can still be an issue at high shutter speeds if you want good sharpness, and certainly helps with subject framing. On a locked down tripod, VR may slightly reduce sharpness because the VR system isn't perfect and can introduce some blur. Hand held, I'd take the VR over nothing at most shutter speeds. And you can always leave it turned off if you really want to - no need to toggle every frame.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The fact is that anything you need to turn off in order before you take a photo with a camera lens, should not be there in the first place</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Periodically, someone asks for a camera without the features that they personally don't like. The problem is that these features tend to add very little complexity to the camera interface, and removing them stops the camera being subsidised by those who would want that feature. To my astonishment, Nikon did produce the Df to try to keep such people happy. Some complained, and a lot of people happy with existing DSLRs decided they didn't want one (including, vocally, me). Sometimes Nikon listens, in its own way. But if you want a 200-500 without VR, just switch VR to "off" and put tape over the switch.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>while you are looking for the switch and turning it off</p>

</blockquote>

<p>...that is under your thumb, and easy to find, especially because apparently you have to keep doing it (and for some reason didn't just leave the VR off)...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just to be positive for a change, VR is needed for nothing in photography. Except doubling profits to corporations.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of all the conspiracy theories to have about camera manufacturers, an expensive and measurable element that is widely used in professional lenses without complaint seems like an odd one. I really encourage you to read exactly what people say when they indicate where VR won't help and exactly when people suggest turning it off. Your ability to take sharp images with a 200mm lens with a high shutter speed under good light does not necessarily translate to 500mm lenses in variable lighting conditions, especially if you want extended depth of field. On the plus side, at least it turns out I wasn't putting words in your mouth.</p>

<p>VR doesn't compensate for subject movement. Despite that, it is useful, it does help, and there's a reason why every long lens by every manufacturer released in the last few years has included a VR component of some sort. I can't think of more ways to persuade you that you are disagreeing with conventional wisdom and pretty much everyone's personal experience on this, apparently based only on the performance of your 80-400, whose limitations are likely not entirely down to the presence of a VR unit. All I can say, again, is go and try a modern VR lens yourself. They're not hard to find. Sweeping statements to the contrary are not informing us of anything but your apparent ignorance.</p>

<p>As Mary indicates, is there actually a problem we can help you with? Or are we just going to continue a back-and-forth on the merits of lenses that many of us here actually own from the perspective of, apparently, someone who doesn't own a modern VR lens?</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Yeah, Andrew, good stuff, but I think we have a troll...</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Maybe I need to update my knowledge, but I always thought VR is basically useless for moving subjects. It is basically to help steady the hand and obviate against camera shake, but it doesn't do anything relating to a subject moving. Only shutter speed and/or panning does that. Though I guess it would help keep the back and surrounding ground steady at low speeds, the subject action, if moving faster than the shutter speed can "stop motion" will be blurry. Also, doesn't VR have a negative effect on panning? Or is there a setting for that to confine the steadying action to up/down motion?</p>

[Nick D.]

<p>LOL, hadn't had that much fun since the Ann somebody was banned for trolling, I believe she was mad at Nikon too.<br>

Daniel, Steve McCurry shooting with that $6000, 16 MP "junk" and he doesn't complain.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

Barry: Just because the subject is moving doesn't mean

having VR won't help you hold the lens steady to aim.

500mm, especially on a crop body, is hard to aim

perfectly even if you're using a sharp enough shutter

speed to freeze motion. And modern VR systems have

panning modes, allowing you to track smoothly with a

moving subject while stabilising hand shake against the

axis of motion. Some detect this automatically, others,

as you say, need to be put in the right mode.

[Andrew Garrard]

Peter: you may be right, but I prefer to give the benefit of

the doubt to new members. Daniel, if you're not trolling

us, please realise how you're coming across. And if you

are, I hope we've done enough to correct any

misinformation you've posted!

[daniel_smithson]

<p>I said that I did the tuning already, last night in my bedroom. I shot pics at plus 5 10 15 and 20, then at minus 5 10 15 and 20. NX view 2 confirmed those settings and every picture looked the same, no difference. I had to use flash of course, logically this can not be done, but no where is that said. Here is a test pic from the other day, the camera was tripod mounted and I used a slow landscape setting, and the maple leaves are just blurry. <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/136279335@N04/22660040709/in/dateposted-public/">https://www.flickr.com/photos/136279335@N04/22660040709/in/dateposted-public/</a><br>

Does that pass any image test? Seriously I wish the lens were broken, but everything seems to be working, except for clear images.<br /> </p>

[daniel_smithson]

<p>Barry, thanks you are correct of course, shutter speed is the best way to obtain a clear image of a moving subject. That said it is being said that VR can not be used over 1/500th of a second, thus you can not get a clear image from a VR lens of a moving subject, unless you turn off the VR, which means it is not needed, and should not be there if your targets move</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Thanks Andrew.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Barry: You're welcome. :-)</p>

 

<blockquote>That said it is being said that VR can not be used over 1/500th of a second, thus you can not get a clear image from a VR lens of a moving subject, unless you turn off the VR, which means it is not needed, and should not be there if your targets move</blockquote>

 

<p>To quote Monty Python's argument clinic:</p>

 

<blockquote>

M: An argument isn't just contradiction.<br />

O: Well! It CAN be.<br />

M: No it can't! An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.<br />

O: No it isn't.<br />

M: Yes it is. 'Tisn't just contradiction.<br />

O: Look, if I <i>argue</i> with you, I must take up a contrary position.<br />

M: Yes, but it isn't just saying "no it isn't".<br />

O: Yes it is.

</blockquote>

 

<p>Daniel, you appear to be applying <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion">proof by assertion</a>. You have stated your background (the 80-400 isn't taking good photos) and your conclusion (all VR is useless). We have, repeatedly, given reasons why your conclusion is invalid. Despite sometimes seeming to read what we said, you don't seem willing to explain any reason you may not have faith in our reasoning, or why you still believe in your conclusion despite our assertions that you are incorrect.<br />

<br />

I'm sure we would be happy to continue the debate if you'd actually like to object to our reasoning, but refusing to change your position in the face of counter arguments and continuously stating information that we have shown you to be invalid is not indicative of a rational discussion (although a few religions might like you). Chuck called you "Denial" in another thread; I'd assumed that was an amusing typo, but now I'm beginning to find it apt. I wouldn't dream of telling the moderators what to do, but if you would like to continue this discussion without them closing it as pointless, I encourage you to find a way to disagree with us that doesn't involve you sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating a mantra very loudly. I'm not trying to get at you, I'm actually trying to help, and I don't like assuming that people are trolling, but please see that you're making it difficult!</p>

[daniel_smithson]

<p>No my conclusion that VR is useless, is based upon the fact that the literature about VR and what is being said here, is that VR does not help with moving subjects, and that if this is the case, that the VR should be turned off. Thus VR is useless to wildlife photographers who have to expect that their subject will run or fly away, or be involved in a chase that they want to capture on camera. Paying double for a lens, then turning off the feature that you paid double to get on the lens is knucking futz. Furthermore as I said, while you are fumbling for the off switch, the bald eagle is flying out of range. This is a fact, as you can see in this useless 400mm image captured with a Nikon 80-400mm lens. <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/136279335@N04/22642432038/in/dateposted-public/">https://www.flickr.com/photos/136279335@N04/22642432038/in/dateposted-public/</a> My photos just confirm what you are saying, which is that VR can not be used for high speed photography which why it is useless to me, and to all others who shoot similar things to me. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>my conclusion that VR is useless, is based upon the fact that the literature about VR and what is being said here, is that VR does not help with moving subjects, and that if this is the case, that the VR should be turned off.</blockquote>

 

<p>Okay, but that's not what the literature, general consensus, or anyone here is saying. VR does not freeze motion in moving subjects. This is absolutely, categorically, not the same thing as "VR does not <i>help</i> with moving subjects". If you can track a subect accurately with a hand-held 4-500mm lens on a crop body, best of luck to you. Most of us can't. If you are sure that your hand motion will have less of an effect on image sharpness than VR at high shutter speeds, good luck to you on that too. Just because VR can have a negative effect on sharpness compared with a locked down exposure on a tripod doesn't mean it will do worse than hand tremor.</p>

 

<blockquote>Thus VR is useless to wildlife photographers who have to expect that their subject will run or fly away, or be involved in a chase that they want to capture on camera.</blockquote>

 

<p>I can only speak for the few thousand images I've taken of birds, and they're in no way my specialty, but I've found VR very helpful, thanks. Now, I defer to the expertise of group members who do more of this than me and are better photographers; if those on this forum who take large numbers of images of birds (Dieter and Shun spring to mind) tell me that they have VR turned off the whole time, I'll happily back down. I'm not aware of them leaping to your defence.</p>

 

<blockquote>then turning off the feature that you paid double to get on the lens</blockquote>

 

<p>If VR was the sole reason to double the price of the lens, you would be entirely justified in deciding whether VR is necessary for you. Sometimes the experienced enthusiast photographic industry pays a premium for a feature because it's useful rather than because of conspiracy. However, do bear in mind that the 70-200VR2 is twice the price of the 80-200AF-D, and the 80-400 AF-S is twice the price of the AF-D, for more reasons than just the VR behaviour. Yes, you may have to pay some premium for the VR on top of what the lens would have been without it; in return, you get your lens subsidised by the users who did want VR.</p>

 

<blockquote>while you are fumbling for the off switch, the bald eagle is flying out of range</blockquote>

 

<p>Then why did you turn VR on in the first place? It doesn't automatically come after every shot. Perhaps you could petition Nikon to add "VR on/off" to things that can be assigned to the programmable buttons on the camera? Still, the VR switch is pretty much under the thumb; I'm not sure that all that much fumbling is needed.</p>

 

<blockquote>My photos just confirm what you are saying, which is that VR can not be used for high speed photography which why it is useless to me, and to all others who shoot similar things to me. </blockquote>

 

<p>I said nothing of the sort. Repeatedly. Please look again at what we've been saying: VR does not freeze subject motion, but that is absolutely not the only factor involved in whether VR will have a positive contribution to your ability to get the photograph, your negative experiences with the old 80-400 (which are likely only partly to do with the VR unit) notwithstanding.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Belatedly, I've had a read of Thom Hogan's article (linked above), which advises not using VR unless you need to. Thom actually makes arguments against using VR (other than just asserting that it's useless). So, how does that affect my argument?<br />

<br />

Thom <i>does</i> suggest that VR can help when locking AF on a subject. Daniel cited bird photography. For me, tracking the eye is the hardest part in capturing birds. I believe the claim that VR can introduce some motion (although frankly, so can sweeping a long lens around), but - depending on the background and the depth of field - I claim that targeting is more important, even if you have enough pixels to crop.<br />

<br />

Thom also suggests that VR works well when tracking a subject in smooth motion. My experience of birds of prey and aquatic birds is that I'm usually tracking them smoothly, and the VR can help. If you're jumping to a target that suddenly appears, or if the motion of the target (and your lens) is irregular, I completely buy that it won't work so well.<br />

<br />

On top of that, I've shot birds under quite gloomy British weather and tried to maintain minimum ISO so I can pull out detail in the feathers that would disappear with noise reduction. Under direct sunlight, I'd go for a high shutter speed and - if I could track the subject well - not sweat the VR too much. In the lighting conditions I use, I really can't hit 1/500s without boosting the ISO or using a wide enough aperture that the image is compromised.<br />

<br />

So I defer to Thom - and Dieter and Shun, who may also be able to say they frequently shoot without VR. Maybe I should do so more myself. But "frequently" isn't "never", and I'll use all the tools at my disposal.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Andrew, so don't sweat it. Good stuff from you, though!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Not sure why my name is dragged into this thread. Andrew, it is not your fault, but I have been trying to stay away from certain recent threads.</p>

<p>To me, VR is most useful for indoor parties, weddings, etc. That is why I think having VR on the 70-200mm/f2.8 is important. Otherwise, for my wildlife photography, a fast shutter speed to stop motion is critical and I just switch off VR.</p>

<p>Anyway, I am closing the discussion.</p>