Tony.mustang

Hi , in regards to the vr I believe u should only shut off your Vr when u are in manual mode.the Vr works in any other way u shoot. U turn the Rv off in manual because you are controlling the focus .if u don't the lens is trying to focus with the vr on.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

VR has nothing to do with focus, VR helps to eliminate camera shake. When hand holding a camera, especially at slow shutter speeds there can be all kinds of camera shake that will cause the image to be blurry due to slight movement of your hand, body, camera, etc. Regardless of the mode you are shooting in, VR attempts to correct for camera shake.

When used on a tripod, many issues for camera shake are removed, however there are different types of shake that can come into play, and VR, unless set for Tripod VR, cannot detect and compensate, so it should be turned off. Not only will it not detect certain tripod mounted shake, but it can actually cause image problems.

Once you get above a certain shutter speed VR becomes unneeded.

rbmcgarvey Loc: Philly, PA

What is "VR"?

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

Nikon - Vibration Reduction.

Other brands may call it IS - Image Stabilization.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

It has to do with focus insofar as if you are doing single spot auto focus and your viewfinder is jumping around !

After combing the internet and UHH for the last couple years here is my take :

VR/IS has the capability of actually introducing image degradation under certain conditions - mostly governed by shutter speed. The concensus seems to be - above SS 125 VR OFF - 125 and below VR ON - unless on a rock solid tripod.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I've been shooting with Canon IS lenses for close to 15 years now... probably made at least a half million photos with them. I have probably seen about 5 or 10 images in that time that I thought might have been degraded by IS malfunctions (it's hard to be certain). Among the other 499,990 images, some would have been impossible without IS, others were clearly improved by it, while some probably saw little or no benefit or certainly no harm from it.

I believe IS helps autofocus... It just seems logical that the AF system would have an easier time locking onto a stabilized subject, than one that's moving around more erratically. However, I don't have any definitive proof of this (just as I've never seen any definitive proof of the occasional claim, mostly from Nikon shooters, that VR slows AF).

I know for certain that in-lens stabilization such as Canon and Nikon use also helps with the image in the viewfinder, which can make a difference especially with longer telephotos and moving subjects (much like stabilized binoculars do).

So I practically never turn off IS... handheld, on a monopod or on a tripod. Actually have the switch covered with gaffer tape on a couple lenses to be sure it doesn't accidentally get switches off.

I do need to note that several of my IS lenses (28-135mm and 300/4) are on the short list that use an older, simpler form of IS that is likely to go whacky if IS is on when there is absolutely no movement. What happens is the IS system actually causes movement, when there is none.

However, these lenses are of a type that I'm much more likely to handhold, occasionally use on a monopod, can't recall the last time I put them on a tripod.

Other, more tripod-oriented lenses I use have a "smarter" type of IS that self-detects and turns off automatically.

So I almost never bother manually turning off IS, even on a tripod. But I also have to note that if there is a problem, you'll see it occurring in the viewfinder and can simply turn off IS then. No harm done, except maybe for a lost image. It won't damage the camera or the lens.

Two times I would turn off IS when using a tripod are when shooting video (which I don't do with my DSLRs), or making very long exposures (longer than, say, 1/2 second). This is because all forms of stabilization tend to cause the image to slowly "drift". This isn't the same as the "feedback" problem and doesn't effect most still photographs, but can be an issue with long exposures and video, in particular.

All my experience is with Canon IS lenses (maybe a dozen different ones over the years... seven in my current kit)... Not with Nikon VR, Sigma OS, Tamron VC or Tokina VCM-S. Those may be different (though I wouldn't expect it, since they all were following Canon's lead, who pioneered stabilizing 35mm SLR lenses).

EDIT: I've also seen claims that stabilized lenses are not as sharp as unstabilized lenses. Well, this is a myth. With Canon lenses and third party lenses for Canon, where there are or have been both versions of a lens... just the opposite is generally true. Certainly all the Canon 70-200s and 200mm and longer lenses with IS are sharper than non-IS versions. Maybe not a lot sharper, but definitely not less sharp. Check the MTF charts. It's a rare exception, but one example of the opposite is the Tamron 17-50/2.8 (crop-only), where the non-VC version is sharper (and less expensive). Again, it may be different among other brands that I'm not as familiar with... just don't accept anything you might hear or read without checking for yourself.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

Interesting findings here, a bit old perhaps, but seems to show some interesting info regarding VR and its use.

http://photographylife.com/proof-that-vibration-reduction-should-first-be-stabilized

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

That is interesting!

Yes, you do need to give IS a moment to "spin up" and do its job. But that's also necessary with AF, which is happening concurrently... So shouldn't be a problem.

I almost exclusively use Back Button Focusing (BBF), and usually start both AF and IS well before taking any shot. Plus I've tried to train myself to "press" the shutter button, rather than quickly "stab" at it. Both these allow at least a half beat for IS to do it's thing, at the same time AF is locking onto the subject and starting to track it. There are times, when shooting moving subjects, that I've got them both running continuously while tracking, taking occasional shots or short series of shots when I see a peak moment through the viewfinder.

Sometimes I find myself taking a shot too fast and blowing it... Missing focus and/or not seeing it stabilized properly. But I don't blame the camera. That's my fault.

In that article he mentions "several seconds", which IMO is more than usually necessary... In my estimation it's more like a half-second or "half beat" under normal conditions and with reasonably good technique, needed to give IS time to work.

I particularly find it interesting that he's done what appear to be some rather careful tests with VR on and off, and is seeing that the VR "off" shots are generally sharper... at least with that particular Nikkor. Maybe I should spend the $s and get a copy of Imatest, shoot a bunch of tests with each of my lenses!

Or maybe I'm better off just not knowing and continuing to shoot real world stuff, rather than test charts in a lab.

NOTE: I would caution to not extrapolate his results with one particular lens model from one manufacturer... Don't assume that all lenses from all manufacturers will behave the same way.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

Agree that the spin up time should only be a quick 1/2 second or so, probably less.

Slow & steadily pressing the shutter is the best method, like squeezing a trigger. No sense introducing more shaking ;)

That article is dated, it would be worth finding more current tests/results as technology has changed as well.

Tony.mustang

Hi, I agree it affects the motion not the focus.i was half asleep when I wrote that.but I agree with your response.thank u for correcting my first response.

topcat Loc: Alameda, CA

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

My bad. I know.