VR and fast shutter speeds (Page 2): How how was your ISO? As it gets high (past about ISO 800/1600 with the D7100), the image can start to look "soft".

amehta Loc: Boston

photon56 wrote:

I am having strange, random focus problems with my... (show quote)

How how was your ISO? As it gets high (past about ISO 800/1600 with the D7100), the image can start to look "soft".

Picdude Loc: Ohio

joer wrote:

"The first and most important rule of VR is this: never turn VR on unless it's actually needed.

Yes, this rule flies in the face of what most everyone in the world seems to do and what Nikon implies with their advertising and marketing. The simple fact is that VR is a solution to a problem, and if you don't have that problem using VR can become a problem of its own."

Read the whole article at: http://www.bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm

"

Very interesting link. Something I'm definitely going to have to test.

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

amehta wrote:

The AF system gets all the light the lens can gather at maximum aperture. With this exposure, there is a lot of light to autofocus.

light yes but why would you want an ISO of 24,000 when 1600 would have worked?

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

oldtigger wrote:

light yes but why would you want an ISO of 24,000 when 1600 would have worked?

I thought that was amehta's point. No?

mrsbee Loc: Kentucky USA

Absolutely I have the same set up. I also found that lens to perform much better not wide open say around 250 is my better shot. I got this lens to be able to get some shots of my purple martin colony. It does well but by far not the best lens on the shelf.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

joer wrote:

"The first and most important rule of VR is this: never turn VR on unless it's actually needed.

Yes, this rule flies in the face of what most everyone in the world seems to do and what Nikon implies with their advertising and marketing. The simple fact is that VR is a solution to a problem, and if you don't have that problem using VR can become a problem of its own."

Read the whole article at: http://www.bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm

"

I assume this goes for Canon IS as well. Problem is that you may not have known that you needed IS untill it's to late if it is off.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

boberic wrote:

I assume this goes for Canon IS as well. Problem is that you may not have known that you needed IS untill it's to late if it is off.

That is why you need to test your equipment to see where the cut off is.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Interesting, but you have to consider that this article is four years old. Maybe Canon is different. I always shoot with IS on with my 600 which I find essential at low shutter speeds. Every one has their own method.

The article does not diminish the value of stabilization. It just points out that its not a magic solution and doesn't always yield the best result.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

photon56 wrote:

I am having strange, random focus problems with my... (show quote)

Nikon uses in-camera VR, instead of in-lens IS, such as Canon does. According to my reading in-camera is less expensive, since you don't need to build it into a whole bunch of lenses, but at longer focal lengths it is not as effective as in-lens IS. The two systems work differently. Is your problem occuring only at longer focal lengths? If there were a problem with your VR system it should show up on all your lenses equally.

amehta Loc: Boston

LFingar wrote:

Nikon uses in-camera VR, instead of in-lens IS, such as Canon does. According to my reading in-camera is less expensive, since you don't need to build it into a whole bunch of lenses, but at longer focal lengths it is not as effective as in-lens IS. The two systems work differently. Is your problem occuring only at longer focal lengths? If there were a problem with your VR system it should show up on all your lenses equally.

Nikon VR is in the lens, not the camera.

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

photon56 wrote:

.... At that fast of a shutter speed, I would think camera shake would not be an issue...... when I disable VR when shooting fast shutter speeds, my photos are consistently much sharper now.

Does this resonate with anyone?

read a comment by rockwell about his canon that might be of interest:

"My first Canon 28-135mm IS lens had a subtly defective IS system. It was devilishly defective in such a way that it worked great at slow speeds, but made daylight shots at faster speeds worse!

I sent it to Canon under warranty, and Canon quickly replaced the IS system, and it came back perfect."

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

amehta wrote:

Nikon VR is in the lens, not the camera.

Then I mis-read something. Thank You for the correction. :thumbup:

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

delete as dupe

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

LFingar wrote:

Nikon uses in-camera VR, instead of in-lens IS, such as Canon does. According to my reading in-camera is less expensive, since you don't need to build it into a whole bunch of lenses, but at longer focal lengths it is not as effective as in-lens IS.

Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Panasonic (mostly) as well as others use lens stabilization. Whether its better than in-body stabilization is debatable. Its more expensive but I doubt its related to manufacturing.

I was inclined to believe the marketing hype put out by the lens group until using the OM D EM 1.

Compared to my Nikon equipment I think the Olympus is just as effective.

I'm not sure there is a cost advantage since the better lenses are still expensive even though they don't have stabilization.

photon56 Loc: North America

Nikonian72 wrote:

Please post a Directly Out Of Camera image, and check the box labeled (store original).

hmm...I'll do a retake. (don't ask :roll: )