I've about had it with Nikon's VR

SKersting66 said:

michaeladawson said:

In a few bullet points...

• It seems the effect I'm seeing is likely nisen bokeh
• Nisen bokeh is has become more prevalent in telephoto lenses due to the highly corrective nature of current telephoto lens designs (aspherical elements, etc.)
• The effect is not directly caused by VR/OIS, but can be exacerbated by it as lens elements are moved further out of alignment to keep the subject sharp (remove vibration).

Click to expand...

I'd say that's a pretty good summary.
But it is also relevant that bokeh characteristics reverse in the FG and BG with lenses that are not perfectly corrected for spherical aberrations.

I.e. an overcorrected lens will produce "outlined" bokeh balls and will tend to show nisen bokeh in the BG; but that same lens is undercorrected in the FG, and will not show it there. Similarly an undercorrected lens will produce very blurred edge bokeh balls and will not tend to show nisen bokeh in the BG; but it will tend to show it in the FG.

However, PF lenses correct for spherical aberrations differently; and that may make them prone to showing nisen bokeh in both the FG and BG... IDK for sure.

Click to expand...

michaeladawson said:

If I have the light then shooting at f/8 is probably a good idea anyway. I'm sort of tired of this extremely narrow depth of field where the birds' eyes are in focus but most of the rest of the body is OOF. Of course, f/8 won't put the entire bird in focus. But it would be an improvement.

Click to expand...

michaeladawson said:

A Owens said:

Roy Kikuta said:

TheSoaringSprite said:

I'm wondering if this is a PF lens thing. I don't own any PF lenses, but I've seen others complain about a similar issue. I've never seen this with any of my Nikon telephoto lenses, but they are not PF.

Click to expand...

I don't believe this is limited to PF lenses - I've got an example shot with my old f-mount 500mmf/4 VR AF-S that shows the same busy double-line bokeh. I believe I've seen the same with the 200-500 f/5.6 VR lens on a D810/D500 as well. Also the same experience with my Z 400 f/4.5... I've got to say that my "awareness" of these types of busy bokehs has been growing over the last 5-10 years.

Click to expand...

The reality is that you need to have an awareness of your BG when using a long lens. Put a busy, messy BG close behind your subject when shooting with a long lens, you will get jangly bokeh, regardless of lens.

Consideration of the BG is an important aspect of long lens technique and a low shooting position is often a solution.

Click to expand...

You’re not wrong. But your advice is really more of a workaround. I don’t think it is realistic to expect that every telephoto shot can be composed so that only the subject is focused and everything else is a nice creamy OOF blur.

I can usually live with a lot of the bad VR rendering I see. But the photo I posted here today is the worst example I’ve ever seen.

One of the question I asked though, is whether VR of other camera brands exhibits this same VR rendering with long telephoto lenses. I fault Nikon but perhaps the reality is that all brands do it. Maybe I’m asking too much of VR. Perhaps the answer is to go back to the old school techniques with no VR for critical shooting or accept the potential consequences.

Click to expand...

Suntan said:

michaeladawson said:

If I have the light then shooting at f/8 is probably a good idea anyway. I'm sort of tired of this extremely narrow depth of field where the birds' eyes are in focus but most of the rest of the body is OOF. Of course, f/8 won't put the entire bird in focus. But it would be an improvement.

Click to expand...

Are you saying you are rejecting the Toneh?

(These vids always crack me up.)

Click to expand...

michaeladawson said:

Lance B said:

A Owens said:

Looks like you shot a twig in the foreground without noticing. Also, any lens will give you nervous bokeh if your put a busy background close behind your subject. The Z mount PF's are not particularly more prone to it than any other lenses, maybe a fraction. I replaced an older 600/4 with the 800/6.3 and don't see a lot of difference regarding nervous bokeh.

Just consider your BG in every shot and get lower!

Click to expand...

Yep. Just looks like a twig to the left of the subject but in front of the subject focus plane. I don't think anything would save that image, VR or no VR - or Nikon VR or Sony/Cano VR. Do some post process AI work to get rid of it.

Click to expand...

Another interesting couple of responses. So, you are saying there is likely a tall, thin stem in the foreground that is showing this effect. It's so blurred out that I don't even see a stem but I can see how that would be the source of the parallel lines.

If I do some testing over the next couple of days I'll be sure to include some very thin stems in front and behind to try and induce this effect.

Click to expand...

michaeladawson said:

Lance B said:

A Owens said:

Looks like you shot a twig in the foreground without noticing. Also, any lens will give you nervous bokeh if your put a busy background close behind your subject. The Z mount PF's are not particularly more prone to it than any other lenses, maybe a fraction. I replaced an older 600/4 with the 800/6.3 and don't see a lot of difference regarding nervous bokeh.

Just consider your BG in every shot and get lower!

Click to expand...

Yep. Just looks like a twig to the left of the subject but in front of the subject focus plane. I don't think anything would save that image, VR or no VR - or Nikon VR or Sony/Cano VR. Do some post process AI work to get rid of it.

Click to expand...

Another interesting couple of responses. So, you are saying there is likely a tall, thin stem in the foreground that is showing this effect. It's so blurred out that I don't even see a stem but I can see how that would be the source of the parallel lines.

If I do some testing over the next couple of days I'll be sure to include some very thin stems in front and behind to try and induce this effect.

Click to expand...

duncang said:

A Owens said:

duncang said:

I would put it down to the PF lenses not the VR, I was never happy with the D850/500PF background rendering and testing the with Z9 showed similar unpleasant background rendering in too many situations, tack sharp for sure but...
I did find the rendering of the 180-600 seemed to be overall much more pleasant in brief use so you might want to try that in similar circumstances to see if the background is improved and at least eliminate VR.
I doubt it is VR given the high shutter speeds used below and the tack sharp subjects.

Click to expand...

The world moves on. The Z mount PF lenses render beautifully. There are little to no optical compromises with modern Z mount PF lenses. Of course the uber f2.8 and f4 lenses are better, but they are better than everything. In fact the 800mm PF is one of the most beautifully rendering lenses I have owned. Even good for cat photos.

Click to expand...

Sure it can be good, however I found the 800 showed similar tendencies as the 500pf in situations such as those shown in the OPs example.

Click to expand...

BGD300V1 said:

The 800mm has a FOV of slightly more than 3 degrees. If you look at your watch, a one second mark covers 6 degrees. Twice that horizontally and three times vertically.

I think problems with the Viewfinder are related to the individuals inability to track a subject. That's difficult with a gimbal mount on a solid tripod let alone handheld where one breath would cause enough movement to lose the subject.

Click to expand...

michaeladawson said:

I should add that one write-up I read said that these nisen bokeh effects are somewhat tamed by stopping the lens down a bit.

Of course, that increases the DOF a bit (fine with me) which by itself would bring more of the busy bokeh area within the DOF. But what I gleaned from that article is that spherical aberration effects are decreased by stopping down.

So I guess that's something that complicates any testing I may decide to do. I'll also want to see what stopping down from f/6.3 to say f/8 might do. If I have the light then shooting at f/8 is probably a good idea anyway. I'm sort of tired of this extremely narrow depth of field where the birds' eyes are in focus but most of the rest of the body is OOF. Of course, f/8 won't put the entire bird in focus. But it would be an improvement.

Click to expand...

buildingsights said:

buildingsights said:

Redpoll - with VR - obtaining an OK background

Click to expand...

agree, a busy background and/or close to the subject is sometimes problematic...
great Redpoll! The 100-400mm with the TC-1.4 is really good, but i was wondering how you took the photo and what was the PP? at 10.000 ISO, the details in the feathers look great!

Click to expand...

ARClark said:

I like the nisen bokeh idea as opposed to VR/IBIS issues. However, I also feel like my 800 PF may be rendering busier backgrounds than my 500E FL with and without TCs; but I really need to do a side by side comparison before stating that definitively.

Click to expand...

Cultius Ponc said:

Just tell people you're using a rare vintage Russian lens for its 'character', and they'll be praising your creativity.

Click to expand...

PLShutterbug said:

Cultius Ponc said:

Just tell people you're using a rare vintage Russian lens for its 'character', and they'll be praising your creativity.

Click to expand...

Ain’t that the truth? The stranger the bokeh, the stronger the CA, and the softer the focus, the more people seem to like stuff. It’s like, why do optical engineers even bother?

Click to expand...

MikeP7000 said:

Yeah, the backgrounds with the 500pf are terribly messy

Click to expand...