Vibration Reduction (VR) is THE BEST!

[nathantw]

I admit that Vibration Reduction (VR) is the best thing since sliced bread. Being able to hand hold a 300mm lens at 1/6 of a second is just incredible. I went and shot some photos for the 4th of July and I "forgot" my tripod (I actually didn't want to carry it). I had my D700 and the 28-300 with me and when it started getting dark I thought "uh-oh." However, VR came to the rescue. Fantastic and simply amazing! I shot these pictures at either ISO 3200 - 6400

300mm, 1/6 sec





90mm, 1/20 sec





52mm, 1/15 sec





52mm, 1/15 sec





68mm, 1/10 sec





Other examples and other pictures can be found here. Thanks for looking. http://www.flickr.com/photos/nathantw/

 

[slimandy]

They look a bit soft and quite noisy to me. I think you'd have been better off at a wider aperture.
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 

[coudet]

They look a bit soft and quite noisy to me.

Soft and noisy indeed. VR is no substitute for a tripod.

 

[xsimplyjosh]

They look a bit soft and quite noisy to me.

Soft and noisy indeed. VR is no substitute for a tripod.

i second this. it looks a bit noisy

--
Nikon D7000 Body & Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G Lens

 

[260684]

Okay, but they would have looked much better and less noisy with a tripod!

 

[gmosc]

VR and slow shutter speeds is addictive because it is even possible, but the next step os trying to get by the ooh factor and see what is interesting to shoot. For you, these are good memories, but for most people here, not really. Lots if not most of the people here are trying to make their pictures look better. I suggest geting over the thrill of what VR makes possible and go after interesting photos. Don't let VR get in the way. If you need your tripod, or a different lens, or a closer vantage point, go for it. Let VR help when you have scoped out the best positioning for a picture.

In general, night photos are not worth going for hand held with consumer lenses with variable apertures like this one. But if you really need to use it, try to avoid zooming all the way to 300mm. There are quite a few possibilities in the closer ranges. If you can take a tripod then do it, but really these lenses shine in medium to good light.

Guy Moscoso

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

The replies so far I find "interesting".
The OP is commenting on the ability of VR to get decently sharp shots at 1/6.

This is about at 6.5 shutter speeds slower than the guide hand held without VR of 1/450 - an approximately 2.5 speed gain compared to Nikon's suggestion of up to 4 speeds advantage.
To the OP - well done.

The first shot looks looks decently sharp magnified to near the resolution limit of the lens
It also displays no noise in the blacks on my monitor

The second shot is "depth of field soft" in the windows in the foreground because the lens was focused at a much longer distance.

Whether it is wise to include parts of an image outside the depth of field zone of sharpness is another topic - but the parts that are meant to be sharp within the zone of depth of field are decently sharp

Whether the close up of the lights has slight blur due to subject movement - possibly a breeze at the long shutter speed of 1/6 - is unclear.

Anybody taking fireworks quickly leans there is some subject movement recorded at 1/6 of a second when a firework "bursts" - as it did in the OP's shot - so again it is sharp apart from 1/6 shutter speed subject movement.

To the OP - thanks for showing what is possible that was not possible before without modern developments - and do not get too disheartened by some comments which appear to be made with those who have a less than ideal knowledge of photography.
--
Leonard Shepherd

Good photography is mainly about doing simple things well. The challenge is doing simple things well enough for good results.

 

[260684]

Leo I can almost hear the sucking up sounds!

We all know what VR can do. But these comments are about when and when you maybe shouldn't use it. This is prime example of when a tripod is needed over VR. Yes you can play at these night shots without a tripod but that's all your ever doing. Fair enough if that's all you want to achieve, I have no problems with that. People reading these forums come to learn though, there are alot of lurkers that appreciate the advise.

I find your comment quite bizzare that just because most of the posters think a tripod is needed that they have "less than ideal knowledge". That is simply alot of crock.

 

[gmosc]

In the past, Leonard's "thing" had been focus charts or focus subjects that are "authorized" by Nikon.

So maybe he was being overly nice to the OP to be able to then get around to talking about focus to then talk about how the OP needs to read the Nikon manual about what focus points are suitable to acquire correct focus.

Leonard is a very intelligent man on many subjects, but his "thing" about Nikon "authorized" focus subjects (besides being true) has been tough to swallow. It showed a lack of empathy for shooters in the field who run into focus problems and then try to find solutions.

In a sense, his empathy with the OP is a very good sign that Leonard is trying to get into another person's thought process which I think is a good thing. The fact that it sort of trashes all the other posters here is fine, too. The OP might get more out of the "good cop" approach that Leonard is taking. As you see, the OP hasn't responded so he didn't seem to resonate with anything said by anyone else, so maybe Leonard might be on to something here. It does take all types.

Guy Moscoso

 

[slimandy]

The replies so far I find "interesting".
The OP is commenting on the ability of VR to get decently sharp shots at 1/6.

This is about at 6.5 shutter speeds slower than the guide hand held without VR of 1/450 - an approximately 2.5 speed gain compared to Nikon's suggestion of up to 4 speeds advantage.

The fact that it is possible doesn't make these shots 'keepers'. To me they would not be. To you maybe they are.

The first shot looks looks decently sharp magnified to near the resolution limit of the lens
It also displays no noise in the blacks on my monitor

You need a new monitor.

The second shot is "depth of field soft" in the windows in the foreground because the lens was focused at a much longer distance.

Whether it is wise to include parts of an image outside the depth of field zone of sharpness is another topic - but the parts that are meant to be sharp within the zone of depth of field are decently sharp

It is not that sharp, and this is only a small reproduction.

Whether the close up of the lights has slight blur due to subject movement - possibly a breeze at the long shutter speed of 1/6 - is unclear.

Anybody taking fireworks quickly leans there is some subject movement recorded at 1/6 of a second when a firework "bursts" - as it did in the OP's shot - so again it is sharp apart from 1/6 shutter speed subject movement.

So why take them @ 1/6th ?

To the OP - thanks for showing what is possible that was not possible before without modern developments - and do not get too disheartened by some comments which appear to be made with those who have a less than ideal knowledge of photography.

If I posted these shots I'd want people to be honest with me. That why I'll improve. He is accepting poor results. The faster he moves on the better.

--
Leonard Shepherd

Good photography is mainly about doing simple things well. The challenge is doing simple things well enough for good results.

Good point!

--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 

[nathantw]

Thanks for your comments. It was rather exciting to be able to shoot at slow shutter speeds especially with a long, LONG lens. That was actually the point of the post. People usually like to see examples so I posted some pictures. They weren't meant to be "oh, look at how beautiful these pictures are." I would have used a low ISO and a tripod if I wanted to do that. They were more examples of what I was able to get handheld and with a long focal length in low, LOW light.

VR and slow shutter speeds is addictive because it is even possible, but the next step os trying to get by the ooh factor and see what is interesting to shoot. For you, these are good memories, but for most people here, not really. Lots if not most of the people here are trying to make their pictures look better. I suggest geting over the thrill of what VR makes possible and go after interesting photos. Don't let VR get in the way. If you need your tripod, or a different lens, or a closer vantage point, go for it. Let VR help when you have scoped out the best positioning for a picture.

In general, night photos are not worth going for hand held with consumer lenses with variable apertures like this one. But if you really need to use it, try to avoid zooming all the way to 300mm. There are quite a few possibilities in the closer ranges. If you can take a tripod then do it, but really these lenses shine in medium to good light.

Guy Moscoso

 

[nathantw]

Thank you, Leonard. You seemed to get exactly why I started this thread.

I've been shooting for decades at night with large format, medium format, and 35mm and I've never, ever was able to shoot at night without a tripod, especially with a telephoto lens. That's what I found incredible.

Thanks again for actually understanding what I was trying to convey.

Nathan

The replies so far I find "interesting".
The OP is commenting on the ability of VR to get decently sharp shots at 1/6.

This is about at 6.5 shutter speeds slower than the guide hand held without VR of 1/450 - an approximately 2.5 speed gain compared to Nikon's suggestion of up to 4 speeds advantage.
To the OP - well done.

The first shot looks looks decently sharp magnified to near the resolution limit of the lens
It also displays no noise in the blacks on my monitor

The second shot is "depth of field soft" in the windows in the foreground because the lens was focused at a much longer distance.

Whether it is wise to include parts of an image outside the depth of field zone of sharpness is another topic - but the parts that are meant to be sharp within the zone of depth of field are decently sharp

Whether the close up of the lights has slight blur due to subject movement - possibly a breeze at the long shutter speed of 1/6 - is unclear.

Anybody taking fireworks quickly leans there is some subject movement recorded at 1/6 of a second when a firework "bursts" - as it did in the OP's shot - so again it is sharp apart from 1/6 shutter speed subject movement.

To the OP - thanks for showing what is possible that was not possible before without modern developments - and do not get too disheartened by some comments which appear to be made with those who have a less than ideal knowledge of photography.
--
Leonard Shepherd

Good photography is mainly about doing simple things well. The challenge is doing simple things well enough for good results.

 

[nathantw]

No, we all didn't know what VR could do. Remember, as they say, it's easy for you if you know the answer. A lot of people, especially those just beginning or just getting around to new technology lenses don't know the answer and they come here to learn them. Isn't that why we frequent these forums, to learn? If not, then we'd be out there shooting pictures instead of sitting in front of a computer.

Whether the picture examples are "soft" or unmemorable that's not the point. The point is that they're examples of what can be done with VR, especially at very low shutter speeds that were unheard of a couple decades ago.

Leo I can almost hear the sucking up sounds!

We all know what VR can do. But these comments are about when and when you maybe shouldn't use it. This is prime example of when a tripod is needed over VR. Yes you can play at these night shots without a tripod but that's all your ever doing. Fair enough if that's all you want to achieve, I have no problems with that. People reading these forums come to learn though, there are alot of lurkers that appreciate the advise.

I find your comment quite bizzare that just because most of the posters think a tripod is needed that they have "less than ideal knowledge". That is simply alot of crock.

 

[nathantw]

So why take them @ 1/6th ?

Because I didn't feel like carrying a 5 pound tripod with me. I thought I said that in the original post. Here, let me make it official, I DIDN'T WANT TO CARRY A TRIPOD WITH ME.

If I posted these shots I'd want people to be honest with me. That why I'll improve. He is accepting poor results. The faster he moves on the better.

You, sir, obviously have not been to San Francisco and walked up and down all the hills all day long carrying your load of equipment.

Here, you want some night pictures on a tripod...

 

[Mako2011]

I've been shooting for decades at night with large format, medium format, and 35mm and I've never, ever was able to shoot at night without a tripod, especially with a telephoto lens. That's what I found incredible.

Thanks again for actually understanding what I was trying to convey.

Nathan

The replies so far I find "interesting".
The OP is commenting on the ability of VR to get decently sharp shots at 1/6.

This is about at 6.5 shutter speeds slower than the guide hand held without VR of 1/450 - an approximately 2.5 speed gain compared to Nikon's suggestion of up to 4 speeds advantage.
To the OP - well done.

The first shot looks looks decently sharp magnified to near the resolution limit of the lens
It also displays no noise in the blacks on my monitor

The second shot is "depth of field soft" in the windows in the foreground because the lens was focused at a much longer distance.

Whether it is wise to include parts of an image outside the depth of field zone of sharpness is another topic - but the parts that are meant to be sharp within the zone of depth of field are decently sharp

Whether the close up of the lights has slight blur due to subject movement - possibly a breeze at the long shutter speed of 1/6 - is unclear.

Anybody taking fireworks quickly leans there is some subject movement recorded at 1/6 of a second when a firework "bursts" - as it did in the OP's shot - so again it is sharp apart from 1/6 shutter speed subject movement.

To the OP - thanks for showing what is possible that was not possible before without modern developments - and do not get too disheartened by some comments which appear to be made with those who have a less than ideal knowledge of photography.
--
Leonard Shepherd

Good photography is mainly about doing simple things well. The challenge is doing simple things well enough for good results.

I know how it works....and am still amazed sometimes at what it can do given what it's doing internally. Thanks for sharing your well placed enthusiasm.

 

[nathantw]

It appears that some of you that are reporting seeing "grainy" pictures don't seem to have their monitors calibrated properly because the pictures look grainy to you then your brightness is turned too high. They look fine on 4 different calibrated displays I looked at them on.

Also if you use your camera at ISO 3200 - 6400 and they're grain free, then you're definitely not using a Nikon camera. So many of you are touted how great the D700 was using high ISO's but when you actually see a picture using those speeds you criticize it. If that's not calling the kettle black I don't know what is.

I understand it's hard to judge pictures when they're small, so here are the larger pictures. I think you'll find that your initial criticisms about sharpness might change. I think what's going on here is that you saw I was using a 28-300 zoom and the initial knee jerk reaction was "well, if it's not a $5000 lens then it has to be soft."

If your mind isn't changed after seeing the larger photos, well, we were talking about camera shake and not lens sharpness or composition. ;-)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nathantw/5903645165/sizes/l/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nathantw/5903642329/sizes/l/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nathantw/5903645883/sizes/l/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nathantw/5903644853/sizes/l/in/photostream/

 

[hoof]

I agree 100%, VR rocks.

About 18 months ago, I was on a boat, doing a night cruise along the Nile in Cairo, Egypt. I got some great shots. Noisy, sure, but the VC (Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 VC) made those shots possible. And unless someone invents a gyrostabilized mount that can account for the up/down motion of the boat, a tripod would be useless on a moving boat

Yes, the shots could have been better with a tripod in your case (and many in this thread apparantly like to point out the obvious in that regard). But you forgot yours. Thanks to VR, you were still able to get decent shots. Others in this thread would rather have not even bothered taking the shot. IMO, that's worse, a poor picture always has better IQ than no shot at all!

You've experienced "what is possible", and one of the major reasons I shoot DSLRs. Many are interested in creating the best possible pictures. I prefer to "capture the moment". Many times you don't have ideal situations/lighting/support. Rather than choosing not to shoot (due to a lack of something, say a tripod), I shoot anyway, and enjoy the technical marvels that allow the shot to be possible .

An example is a shot I took in the burial chamber in a tomb in Egypt. This shot is pretty bad for a variety of reasons. I couldn't use a tripod or flash, without getting into serious trouble. But, because of my Tamron VC and the high ISO capability of my D90, I was able to get a shot:





That took maximum ISO, and a quarter second shutter speed. At the time, no other DX camera body or lens would have been able to even get the shot (at least w/o underexposing and PP correction). Only an FX body with the latest primes or the new 16-35 F/4 VR would have allowed that shot. Primes on the D90 require too fast a shutter speed on DX bodies to equal what the Tamron gave me (by about 1 stop in ISO metering vs a F/1.4 lens).

Is that a great shot? Of course not! (camera shake blur not fully corrected by VC, misfocus, high ISO noise). But I now have a shot of the roof of a burial chamber in a pyramid. Had I let concerns about the IQ get in the way, I'd not have even had that shot! (or I might have been arrested for using a flash or smuggling a tripod in)

It's not always about getting the maximum quality shot. Sometimes it's about getting a shot in a very difficult situation. That is why I love VR/VC/OS, it allows you to push the envelope of what shots are possible.

 

[hoof]

Whether the picture examples are "soft" or unmemorable that's not the point. The point is that they're examples of what can be done with VR, especially at very low shutter speeds that were unheard of a couple decades ago.

I 100% agree with this statement. It's not always about image quality, at least for me.

 

[hoof]

Thank you, Leonard. You seemed to get exactly why I started this thread.

I've been shooting for decades at night with large format, medium format, and 35mm and I've never, ever was able to shoot at night without a tripod, especially with a telephoto lens. That's what I found incredible.

Thanks again for actually understanding what I was trying to convey.

Nathan

Glad to see someone else gets enjoyment from finding out what's possible with modern technology. Sometimes it's really cool to get a shot that years ago wouldn't have been possible at all, or would require extra equipment.

I love VR for the freedom and flexibility it gives me. Just like a zoom lens, it helps get the equipment out of the way so you're not fussing with equipment and are just taking pictures. I hate tripods for that reason, I prefer to be able to walk around, and take a shot quickly w/o having to "set up". I use zooms vs my nice primes for the same reason, sometimes I don't want the hassle of swapping lenses.

It's obvious that many in this thread missed the point of your thread. It's also funny to see them state what is obvious, of course a tripod would make for better pictures. Why do people feel the need to do that, and why can't people see past their own photography styles to see what you're talking about?

 

[Mako2011]

Nice shot, thank you for sharing.