Non VR vs VR
Jun 28, 2019 18:58:28 #
I have 2 almost identical 70-300 Nikon lenses except one has VR and the other doesn't. What would a good test to demonstrate the superiority of VR? Thanks
Jun 28, 2019 19:04:58 #
Jack, I have a 70~300 Nikkor. Unlike 95% of my other lenses, it has VR. As a result, I tend to forget that it is there and hardly ever use it. I've had no problems.
So, devising a test to show the superiority of VR is a waste of time for me. Now, much like any lab test, you'll have to come up with a plan that will strictly compare the non-VR and VR use. However, let me caution you that starting out to "demonstrate the superiority" will most likely not be an honest test. It is biased from the start.
--Bob
So, devising a test to show the superiority of VR is a waste of time for me. Now, much like any lab test, you'll have to come up with a plan that will strictly compare the non-VR and VR use. However, let me caution you that starting out to "demonstrate the superiority" will most likely not be an honest test. It is biased from the start.
--Bob
JackGriffin wrote:
I have 2 almost identical 70-300 Nikon lenses except one has VR and the other doesn't. What would a good test to demonstrate the superiority of VR? Thanks
Jun 28, 2019 19:06:11 #
Pick a subject that fills the frame at 200mm. Shooting hand-held with your best technique, start at 1/400 at f/8 and the necessary ISO for a good exposure, and take 3- to 5-images at every shutter speed from 1/400 down to 1/30. Perform both lenses, both at 200mm and 300mm, with the VR always active on the VR-enabled lens. Take all the images to your computer and view all 100% zoom. Determine the minimum shutterspeed, per lens, that has a keeper rate at 50% or higher. There will be your answer. Preview: sell the non VR lens.
Jun 29, 2019 06:56:37 #
JackGriffin wrote:
I have 2 almost identical 70-300 Nikon lenses except one has VR and the other doesn't. What would a good test to demonstrate the superiority of VR? Thanks
It's pretty simple.
Use the lens with VR. Shoot at really low shutter speeds, some with VR on and others off. If you put a second lens in the mix, it would be a proper test, since the lenses may have different optical characteristics. If the only thing you want prove is the virtue of VR, then isolate just that variable.
I did this with a 150-600 - shot this at 1/25 sec, F8, ISO 400, hand held, at 600mm - the distance was about 18 ft. I would not use this on a regular basis, but the lens' stabilization is good enough to shoot at low shutter speeds if I need to. In this situation I completely accepted the value of stabilization - I just wanted to get a feel how effective it was for this lens and camera combination. With a rule of thumb of 1/focal length as your slowest shutter speed - then the effectiveness - for me - was slightly better than a 4 stop advantage. For better keeper rate - I routinely shoot at 1/125 or faster.
Jun 29, 2019 08:28:26 #
Jun 29, 2019 09:31:12 #
JackGriffin wrote:
I have 2 almost identical 70-300 Nikon lenses except one has VR and the other doesn't. What would a good test to demonstrate the superiority of VR? Thanks
This demonstration of the value of VR, IS or OS, etc. vs. without has been demonstrated to death. You are not going to be able to gain anything doing this exercise. Don't waste your time just refer to the multitude of proven tests on the internet. Just my 2 cents worth.
Jun 29, 2019 09:49:29 #
olemikey
Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida
VR just plain works when you need it. If you are really steady (no shake/sway) it is less important. If you are doing "run & gun" shooting, chasing the target, it can help a lot . For static/tripod shooting, less value or unnecessary. I have and use similar lenses with and without, circumstance dependent. Another test session - I would rather test to see which is sharpest or better overall, I can still compensate for lack of VR or any image stabilization when necessary, but lack of overall sharpness, or some other issue, is harder. A string of good answers prior to mine.
Jun 29, 2019 10:06:35 #
Strodav
Loc: Houston, Tx
Where I "see" it the most is when I'm out birding with a long lens handheld with a gentle variable breeze. Look through the viewfinder and you will see movement as my body, the camera and lens catch the wind. Push the button to focus (in my case BBF) and the movement goes away as VR does its thing. Of course, I see it in my keep rate. Really don't need it for wide angle lenses and even normal primes, but I even find it useful in my Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8.
Jun 29, 2019 10:50:11 #
There are plenty of examples in the Web that show the "superiority" of VR vs non VR. I am sure you know that using the non VR version with a tripod your 70-300 if the optics are good should show similar results to using VR hand held.
VR is convenient and with the exemption of wide angles where VR is not absolutely necessary between two lenses, one with and the other without it I will go for the VR version.
VR is convenient and with the exemption of wide angles where VR is not absolutely necessary between two lenses, one with and the other without it I will go for the VR version.
Jun 29, 2019 15:02:34 #
JeffL
Loc: New Jersey
Some of us, who are septuagenarians or older, like me, cannot handhold a camera steady enough. VR becomes a need to have, not want to have.
Jun 29, 2019 16:16:21 #
[quote=Gene51]It's pretty simple.
Thanks Gene. I shouldn't be comparing two lenses but instead my new lens with and without VR. That way I'm dealing with only one variable. Like you said "It's pretty simple"
Thanks Gene. I shouldn't be comparing two lenses but instead my new lens with and without VR. That way I'm dealing with only one variable. Like you said "It's pretty simple"
Jun 29, 2019 17:51:38 #
[quote=JackGriffin]
Jack - keeping it simple is often the hardest thing to do.
Gene51 wrote:
It's pretty simple.
Thanks Gene. I shouldn't be comparing two lenses but instead my new lens with and without VR. That way I'm dealing with only one variable. Like you said "It's pretty simple"
Thanks Gene. I shouldn't be comparing two lenses but instead my new lens with and without VR. That way I'm dealing with only one variable. Like you said "It's pretty simple"
Jack - keeping it simple is often the hardest thing to do.
Jun 29, 2019 18:13:47 #
AirWalter
Loc: Tipp City, Ohio
JackGriffin wrote:
I have 2 almost identical 70-300 Nikon lenses except one has VR and the other doesn't. What would a good test to demonstrate the superiority of VR? Thanks
Take several images with VR on and then the same images with VR off with the same lens and compare them. Don't test the lens with VR on and then the other lens with no VR because you are trying to get a comparison of VR or no VR, not two different lens.
Jun 30, 2019 09:39:39 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
JackGriffin wrote:
I have 2 almost identical 70-300 Nikon lenses except one has VR and the other doesn't. What would a good test to demonstrate the superiority of VR? Thanks
On your cropped sensor zoom out to 300 which should have an angle of view of about 450mm. Focus on something about 20 feet away. Make sure you are hand holding, aim at object and with VR off look at the image, there should be a slight movement to the image, now turn on VR, now, do the same, you should see the object get real still, stiller than without VR, that is the difference.
Jun 30, 2019 10:44:29 #
d3200prime wrote:
This demonstration of the value of VR, IS or OS, etc. vs. without has been demonstrated to death. You are not going to be able to gain anything doing this exercise. Don't waste your time just refer to the multitude of proven tests on the internet. Just my 2 cents worth.
Everyone has different abilities to hold a camera steady. I see nothing wrong with doing your own VR vs non-VR test to see for yourself what advantage it has.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.