80-400vr focusing problem

[daniel_smithson]

<p>Google dot tune method. It is a simple way of calibrating auto focus by using live view as the standard. Seems like it would be easy, if the user knew what they were doing, which I do not evidentially, seriously, I do not even know where this focus button is, that changes these values, the video assumes that one knows. I don't. <br /> Just took some more shots indoors, I can read text on a power adaptor at 200mm but not at 400mm, at 15 feet, though I might be too close as 65 feet might be the minimum for 400mm.<br /> On another note, I have been jumping around the web at other sites, some having Nikon in the name, and they were all nonsense. I would really like to thank everyone here who is showing me what I do not know, and for taking the time to explain those things. You people are the best, Thanks.</p>

<p>And just to show that I can take a photo <a href=" <br>

This dragonfly has landed on the back of a great blue heron <a href=" <br>

Thanks again.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<blockquote>

<p>Just took some more shots indoors, I can read text on a power adaptor at 200mm but not at 400mm, at 15 feet, though I might be too close as 65 feet might be the minimum for 400mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Daniel, I like your turtle and dragonfly shots very much. Great work!</p>

<p>So it seems your lens can auto-focus after all. However, the minimum focus distance of this lens is about <strong>6 feet</strong> (not 15' or 65'). As long as you are 6 feet or further from your subject, you should be able to focus from 80 to 400mm.</p>

<p>Please double-check the <strong>focus/focal-limit settings of your lens</strong> (above the VR settings) and test-focus with the various settings. If it's still impossible to focus, then perhaps it would make sense to send it to Nikon repair under the warranty?</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

[kari_oinonen]

<p>Daniel, one thing you might benefit from before you start changing settings in your camera. To have a peace of mind to not to mix or loose those current setup values in the camera:<br>

Store the current values, so you get them back if needed.<br>

To do so -> tool menu, find there a menu item like "store/load settings" and via that menu function, store settings to the memory card. When stored to the memory card (most) settings can be loaded back to the camera afterwards, if needed. Mark that memory card with the original settings and put it aside to do testing with your camera settings.<br>

As I do not have any 7xxx cameras with U1, U2 banks, check the manual that also the user settings get back when loaded from the memory card.</p>

<p>What can be guessed from the car back window photos is that you are using an area focus mode. That explains why you have the upper part of the back window sharp in one photo and in an another the stickers are in focus. Correct?<br>

Consult the camera manual how to set up a single point af. If more flexibility is needed for more changing situations then dynamic af with 9 or 21 focus points can be fine.</p>

[daniel_smithson]

<p>I am using the U1 setting which incorporates the sport mode, which uses the single point focus, this is what I use for the majority of the shots I take with this and my 80-2002.8D as well. When I need more focus points I simply switch to U2 which incorporates the landscape mode, in other situations I will switch to the green camera auto mode. These things work flawlessly with the 80-200 and thus I can be confident.<br>

When I am doing the AF fine tune, I will initially start with a 400 zoom, what would be the optimal distance to target be?</p>

<p>For the U settings, this is one area where I had difficulty, but have memorized both my settings and how to enter them, and yes it does take a bit of tweaking, but the info screen really helps. </p>

[kari_oinonen]

<p>You have U banks set that way, ok.<br>

For af fine tuning some say that the focus target should be about 50 x FL away. That would make 20 meters in your case at FL=400mm. What you should aim is to get calibration to work at/around shooting distances and focal lengths you mostly use. At least I would not try to get the best match at less that 3 meters. 10 meters would generally be better.<br>

Single focus point for af fine tune to know exactly where you are aiming. A simple target like a page of a newspaper taped to a wall (if indoors). Then just make some adjustment tests and compare results.<br>

After having finished with you probably most used FL that is 400, you could check how FL=100 mm performs. (The problem with the af fine tune is actually the fact, that the needed fine tune value may change as a function of: distance, focal length and aperture. It cannot be covered always by a single af-value.)<br>

It helps if you can see the focus point and exif data including the af fine tune value for each image. Nikon free Capture NX-d provides those, like many other tools.</p>

<p> </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>I said it before but am going to say it again - before doing the AF fine tune, please perform the test I asked for earlier above. At this point, I am not convinced that you have indeed an AF tuning issue, an issue with the lens, or if most of what you have shown is due to a less than optimum choice of camera parameters.</p>

[daniel_smithson]

<p>I do not choose any camera parameters, the camera chooses them for me. My U1 setting with sport parameters works just fine with my 80-200, why would they not work with the 80-400? The reason for the camera setting programs is so that people do not have to fumble when a photo is happening. Also I can not do any manual focus with my eyes at 400mm, the amount of turn on the focus ring is just too small from in focus to out of focus. As for the live view, I have much the same problem, and if I keep moving my head to focus my eyes I miss even a test shot. </p>

[daniel_smithson]

<p>that was the 400 with VR on mounted to a tripod. <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/136279335@N04/22972445625/in/dateposted-public/">https://www.flickr.com/photos/136279335@N04/22972445625/in/dateposted-public/</a> </p>

<p>Here is the 200 handheld, with the same camera settings, <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/136279335@N04/22580279019/in/dateposted-public/">https://www.flickr.com/photos/136279335@N04/22580279019/in/dateposted-public/</a></p>

<p>Manual focus at this distance is beyond me, I need the camera to do it for me.</p>

[kari_oinonen]

<p>As I wish a positive outcome from this ( and other threads ) I comment on some of the images you have shown:<br>

Car back window: in one the stickers are perfectly in focus, in others not so. Obviously your camera chose some parameters that you did not and the results are according to that. You do not know what you will get if you let the camera to take too much of the control. You should be guiding the technology.<br>

The last two: photo at 200 mm taken with 80-200 is ok, the one taken at 400mm is not sharp anywhere. I may see some horizontal movement - why. I have to ask what kind of tripod and tripod head are you using? Also how are you tripping the shutter?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also I can not do any manual focus with my eyes at 400mm, the amount of turn on the focus ring is just too small from in focus to out of focus.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>- True with many lenses that has a short focus throw.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As for the live view, I have much the same problem, and if I keep moving my head to focus my eyes I miss even a test shot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>- Could not follow that, but you could use the already mentioned live view af while in live view.<br>

Set the camera in live view tripod mode - see the manual ;-) This depends on the camera model but you find it where they tell about that contrast detect af (CDAF). Start the live view. Then zoom in to the LV (+ button on the left side), then let the camera do the LV af. This af uses a sensor based image to focus. Just press the focus/release button as normally focusing. You were guided to do this earlier already.</p>

<p>Take some time during several days to test and experiment what has been suggested. - Cheers!</p>

 

[daniel_smithson]

<p>The tripod is a Bogen and the head is a Manfrotto that should balance 22lbs <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/368325-REG/Manfrotto_468MGRC2_468MGRC2_Magnesium_Hydrostatic_Ballhead.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/368325-REG/Manfrotto_468MGRC2_468MGRC2_Magnesium_Hydrostatic_Ballhead.html</a> The real kicker here, is that ALL of the literature for VR lenses, claims that it enables hand holding over tripod mounting, because the VR stabilizes the camera shake from handholding. Those images were the experiment, I always turn back to the 200 to prove that I can actually focus a photo. </p>

 

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>400 with VR on mounted to a tripod</p>

</blockquote>

<p>VR should be OFF when using a tripod - that's at least what the manual suggests. I don't totally agree with that - but it depends on the setup (I would turn it on when using a gimbal head, for example). </p>

<p>You also used 1/1000s shutter speed - in which case VR should have been off too (its only effective at speeds 1/500s and slower). The blurriness in that image might very well be caused by the VR compensating for some non-existing motion. Or, as Kari mentions, be caused by how you are tripping the shutter (hopefully with a remote and not by actually pressing the shutter release). And there is also the issue with the inadequate tripod foot of the 80-400.</p>

<p>Aside from what motion caused the blurriness - at that subject distance (EXIF says 60 meters) I don't expect the 80-400 to perform much better. BTW, EXIF confirms that it is indeed the older AF-D version, not the newer AF-S.<br>

<br />From the EXIF data, it appears that the AF settings are suitable for "sports" - AF-C, single area, with center AF area selected. In live view mode, the sports program may select wide-area AF, which could cause some issues with subjects that are far away - making sure normal-area AF is selected would greatly help to make sure the camera actually focuses on what it's supposed to focus on.</p>

[daniel_smithson]

<p>If one can not shoot at over 1/500th one can not shoot sport photography with VR, one can also not shoot wildlife either as the birds and cheetahs are moving fast and changing direction as well. But this is EXACTLY what _K.e.n.R.o.c.k.w.ell_ said in his review of VR technology. Faster shutter speeds give clearer photos, so if VR can not shoot fast, why have it in the first place.</p>

 

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Faster shutter speeds give clearer photos, so if VR can not shoot fast, why have it in the first place.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You seem to be confusing issues here: fast shutter speeds are needed to freeze subject motion. VR is meant to allow you to handhold shots at slower shutter speeds (than the general rule of thumb of 1/focal length) - it does absolutely nothing to combat subject motion - just camera shake. VR is of little or no use when the shutter speed is already fast enough for camera shake not to influence the image (faster than 1/500s); in addition, the rate at which VR detects camera motion is not fast enough to have much of an effect at those fast speeds.<br /> <br /> Where I find VR quite valuable is when shooting prop planes in flight - long focal length (400 or 500mm), slow shutter speeds (1/100-1/160s) to get prop blur - while panning with a plane that is substantially faster moving than your dog or a cheetah. It would be quite easy to get a sharp image of the plane with 1/1000 or 1/2000s - but that would show a plane with a propeller that appears to be standing still - so its necessary to have rather slow shutter speeds and pan with the plane to get a sharp image with a nice prop blur (full circle would be best but unless one is shooting planes designed for acrobatics, that would require even slower shutter speeds (1/15-1/30s; even VR can't help you there anywmore).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If one can not shoot at over 1/500th one can not shoot sport photography with VR, one can also not shoot wildlife either</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Who said that you should have VR on when shooting fast action? Ilkka has given a very good explanation of what VR can and cannot do in this thread: <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00daCb">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00daCb</a>; no need to repeat it all here.</p>

[daniel_smithson]

<p>Again, a VR lens cost twice as much, yet it should not be used in the most challenging conditions. <a href="http://www.tydonsafaris.com/kruger-park-blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/cheetahbuck.jpg">http://www.tydonsafaris.com/kruger-park-blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/cheetahbuck.jpg</a> <br>

And again my manual says that the VR lens can be handheld in a driving vehicle, which is true, as long as you expect a blurry image. So how does one get a crisp handheld image, in a moving vehicle, with a slow shutter speed? </p>

[daniel_smithson]

<p>Using mathematical logic, which I have done, if a VR lens is designed to reduce handheld camera shake at a slower shutter speed, (longer timeframe) the lens should easily be able to reduce (((less camera shake that occurs at a higher shutter speed))). Or in other words the VR has to work harder and do more at the slower shutter speed than it would need to at the higher speed, thus the VR image at a higher shutter speed should also be clearer. So that explanation does not make mathematical sense.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Daniel, I suggest you read this article <a href="http://www.bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm">http://www.bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm </a>- because all your posts are showing is a lack of understanding on what VR can and cannot do. <br>

And for the record - although it has already been stated - your 80-400 has the first generation VR - so do not judge the effectiveness of current VR technology by it. The 80-400 has no "active" mode - which is what you would use when something moves you - as opposed to the normal mode that should be used when you are "moving" the camera. And as Ilkka pointed out, some lenses now have even different modes to aid in camera shake reduction while detecting panning motion.</p>

 

[Mary Doo]

<p>A few things to note about the AF-D version of the 80-400mm lens: (1) Auto-focus is slow. (2) It is soft at 400mm. (3) Minimum focus distance is 7.5 feet.</p>

<p>Re VR - Generally it is not advisable to turn VR on <strong>when the camera is on the tripod</strong>.</p>

<p>Hope the intervening variables can be sorted out soon and wittle down to whether it is indeed a defective auto-focus. Good luck Daniel!</p>

[daniel_smithson]

<p>I know full well what a Nikon camera and lens should be able to do, and while I have not tuned this 80-400 lens yet, I received a new 50mm1.4G lens in the mail yesterday and tested it for the first time today. I was up all night and am quite tired so I only had a short time to shoot the lens, but I ended up with these two shots, the first is me shooting my dog, as reflected off of her eye <a href=" and one more portrait, of the dog, scroll down to see link. <a href=" Point being, my new lens has clarity and depth unlike anything I have ever seen before, my camera is excellent, and most important, I can work the tools instantly. Which ends up in the 80-400 is trash, but I'm going to take it out in the woods, find a scenic spot with a brook in the background, and take some nice shots of the 80-400 with the new 50mm and then at least I will have good shot from the 80-400.</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>Daniel, I'm curious, because I don't think this issue has really been answered yet;</p>

<p>Have you tried putting it on a tripod, turning VR off, and using Live View? </p>

[daniel_smithson]

<p>I have tried everything except the tuning thing, which I might do today. Bye the way, centering on a bird in flight is not possible with the live view, certainly not on a tripod, so this method while it might be used for test pictures to rule in or out of something, could never be used for wildlife photography, thus should not even be on the camera from my point of view. </p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>I realize the Live View cannot track a bird in flight, but the point of "ruling in or out of something" with test pictures is exactly that. If you cannot get a sharp picture of a static object using Live View then the lens is simply not sharp, and tuning won't help. You need to find out what is wrong before you try to fix what is wrong.</p>

[daniel_smithson]

<p>Thanks Matt, I will try. Though the wind is blowing 30mph today, so the lake I had in mind for use is not going to be ideal.</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>By the way, since my wife happens to have a D7100 and the old 80-400 VR lens, I briefly swiped them and tried them out myself. Focus appeared to be well adjusted, but when all is said and done, it's just not as sharp at 400 as it might be, and while it's not absolutely terrible, I think it's just not up to the job of satisfying a 24 megapixel sensor at 400. I tried switching to my D3200, which does not AF with this lens, and manually focused in magnified live view with the VR off. It was not terrible, again, but my old manual focus 400/5.6 AI, even with a rather unsettling fungus infestation and more chromatic aberration, is easier to focus and sharper when it's right. <br>

Here's a very quick and dirty test, taken of a transformer outside the house. The left hand is the 80-400 zoom, the right the 400 prime. The sun blew out part of the label on the prime shot, and it's exposure compensated, but otherwise there is no post processing here, and the crops are not resized: the 80-400 shot is 272 pixels wide out of an original 6016 wide shot. So you can see that the cropping is drastic, and both images were not bad in full size. But you can also see that the old 400 outresolves the zoom. </p>

<div></div>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>Just to be clear the degree of pixel peeping that's involved here, this is the original 80-400 shot that the left hand side above was cut from. D3200, manual focusing magnified in Live View, VR off, tripod, self timer, F8, ISO100. </p><div></div>

[daniel_smithson]

<p>Ok I did test tuned shots at plus 5 10 15 and 20, then minus 5 10 15 and 20. Did this in my bedroom with the built in flash at 400mm on some books, and all the photos look equal. I viewed the data in NX2, and it was as I said, but all books look equal. WTF, how can that be?</p>