The Impact of VR on IQ at Faster Shutter Speeds

[J-see]

Sorry, that is my mistake then, assuming the D750 also has the D800 shutter. The D700 did sync at 1/320.

Assuming always gets us in trouble.

Yep and the same goes for thinking because it's digital, it is advanced. I still can't compute the idea of such an ancient system in my cam. It's like selling me a Ferrari with a steam engine.

 

[Eyelight]

During this period of the year the Tam has a harder time grabbing and holding focus. f/6.3 at the long end isn't helping either. I always notice that during burst which presents itself as a reasonable fail-rate. But the moment I forget to switch VR off, the number increases quite a lot. I tested it and each time I forget it, it's immediately obvious VR does do no good there.

I don't know if that is the result of too many things happening at once, VR trying to correct for shake while the lens has to correct for subject movement and the one compromising the movement of the other or maybe the one simply causes a delay which slows tracking down and as a result, I shoot more out of focus shots. At some birding site I read VR slows down AF when using AF-C but there's no explanation to it.

At 600mm it doesn't need much to not be in focus.

That's why as a general rule, I don't use VR when shooting above 1/400s. At lower speeds, my subject is normally static.

To add: I use BBF but the moment I press focus, VR jumps into action since I see the viewfinder stabilize. If Tam follows the same logic as Nikon, lens correction starts the moment I release. I read on other cams it doesn't activate VR but that's clearly not the case for me. At least not in regards to the first algorithm.

The BBF note I read may have been related to cameras with dedicated AF-On buttons.

No doubt that you experience what you experience, but it is just one user/camera/lens combination. Issues are theories until a large enough sampling (user reports) indicate that what it is, is indeed, what it is.

That's actually one of the reasons I started this thread. We hear and read a lot of stuff that doesn't seem to be experienced across the board by all users with all cameras, all lenses in all shooting situations.

The hard part about sharing VR experiences is it doesn't all work the same. Nikon seems to have several different configurations and I have to think that focal length plays some part in how well (or not well) it works.

 

[J-see]

My issues are real indeed but there's no way to present them except as anecdotal. Even if I'd show burst series, there's no indication VR is the factor. There could be multiple reasons why something is out of focus and while I know VR is the factor in my case, there's no way I can make a solid case for that.

I first have to start calculating when VR would correct during my exposure and how often since this focal shutter time limit also implies that the smaller the slit, the more such affects the correction applied to my shot and/or the sensor area it is applied to.

Back to the drawing board for a bit to check if I can find different shutter settings with VR enabled that might affect my out of focus ratio. Maybe certain speeds will do better than others.

 

[WayneF]

Yep and the same goes for thinking because it's digital, it is advanced. I still can't compute the idea of such an ancient system in my cam. It's like selling me a Ferrari with a steam engine.

You mean the shutter sync speed? Until the 1980s (which is not that ancient to me ), focal plane shutter flash sync was 1/60 second, so fast shutters with 1/250 second sync have come a long ways compared to cars with steam engines.

It must be a price thing, fast has to also be rugged enough to stand up to it. The D800 and D4 families have the faster shutter (but the D700 had it too).
The D1 even had 1/500 second sync, but then they stopped doing that (at least with focal planes).

Nikon marketing is hard to figure, but the D750 still has to be one heck of a camera. User-wise, the D600 and D750 are more of a FX D7100, with all the Auto and Scene modes.

 

[J-see]

You mean the shutter sync speed? Until the 1980s (which is not that ancient to me ), focal plane shutter flash sync was 1/60 second, so fast shutters with 1/250 second sync have come a long ways compared to cars with steam engines.

It must be a price thing, fast has to also be rugged enough to stand up to it. The D800 and D4 families have the faster shutter (but the D700 had it too).
The D1 even had 1/500 second sync, but then they stopped doing that (at least with focal planes).

Nikon marketing is hard to figure, but the D750 still has to be one heck of a camera. User-wise, the D600 and D750 are more of a FX D7100, with all the Auto and Scene modes.

I mean the mechanism itself. We're landing spacecrafts on a comet milions of miles from here and it isn't possible to somehow connect a timer in the system?

I'm no camera technician but if they can convert photon information into a digital file, shouldn't it be possible to simply calculate that photon count during a specific period? Mirror up. At t0; start, at t0.002; stop. Mirror down. 1/500th of a second full sensor exposure, no distortion.

Maybe that's too simple.

 

[WayneF]

I mean the mechanism itself. We're landing spacecrafts on a comet milions of miles from here and it isn't possible to somehow connect a timer in the system?

I'm no camera technician but if they can convert photon information into a digital file, shouldn't it be possible to simply calculate that photon count during a specific period? Mirror up. At t0; start, at t0.002; stop. Mirror down. 1/500th of a second full sensor exposure, no distortion.

Maybe that's too simple.

You can't just time the mirror, or use a simple blade or guillotine shutter. One frame edge opens first and closes last. One edge of sensor gets more light than the other side. Won't much matter at slow speeds, but fast is out of the question. That's why focal plane has two curtains, one opening, and one following along closing. All sensor areas get the same amount of light.

Speeds faster than about 1/100 second require intense mechanical action. Timing 1/4000 second is out of the question. Timing 1/1000 second mechanically is extremely difficult (certainly if also providing many speeds from a few seconds on up). The D800 and D4 do 1/8000 second. But the beauty of focal plane is that it does Not time the exposure directly, it just times the delay of the second curtain starting... a wait time, which is nothing for a crystal timer.

DSLR use CMOS sensors now. Cameras with CCD senors have to disable the chip to serially move the image data out of the chip anyway. So compact and camcorders still use CCD, and just time the enable On time to act as shutter speed. This is very inexpensive, the chip can already do it. It is what you ask for.

A few early economy DSLR did that too (D70, D40, etc), and could sync flash at any shutter speed, but the better models (D80) using the same CCD chip instead used a real focal plane shutter, because it is simply a better shutter. CCD shutters were not real shutters, did not block the light from hitting the sensor when off, which can cause blooming. They did have a cheap mechanical shutter to cover the chip, which was used for slower speeds (like up to about 1/100 second, accuracy not yet very important), but for faster, it had to open to get out of the way of the electronic shutter, which increased risk of blooming. So with CMOS, we don't hear about blooming any more, but here is a good example of blooming, D70 and D80, with SAME CCD sensor, but D70 has electronic shutter, and D80 has conventional focal plane shutter. Nikon D80 Review: Full Review - Exposure

CMOS is different, much more complex, and cannot do fast enable/disable like CCD can. For example, the current Nikon 1 class of CX cameras do use a electronic chip shutter with CMOS, but with only 1/60 sec sync. The first early models of this "1" class had a inexpensive version with 1/60 sync, and a more expensive version using an actual focal plane shutter, syncing at 1/200 (or 1/250, I forget which?).

Anyway, shutters are not about photons. They are about very intense mechanical movement, which need to last hundreds of thousands of cycles. Materials may have improved, but kinetics has not changed that much.

 

[J-see]

I just used the mirror up because I actual prefer a mirror in my cam. There's no need for any mechanism.

Since the sensor translates photons into electrons, I don't see why it shouldn't be possible to have a stop start function to that process. All it needs to do is stop the electron release after n amount of time and then proceed normally.

All that requires as a mechanism is a timer and a sensor capable of being halted at exact durations. The shutter and curtains can then be moved to their rightful place: the museum.

 

[WayneF]

I just used the mirror up because I actual prefer a mirror in my cam. There's no need for any mechanism.

? Today's DSLR has both, mirror and focal plane shutter. The mirror cannot be used for shutter.

Since the sensor translates photons into electrons, I don't see why it shouldn't be possible to have a stop start function to that process. All it needs to do is stop the electron release after n amount of time and then proceed normally.

All that requires as a mechanism is a timer and a sensor capable of being halted at exact durations. The shutter and curtains can then be moved to their rightful place: the museum.

Buy a compact camera then, and you've got exactly that. It is not considered the best way (could call it ancient, compared to todays CMOS). Probably doesn't even provide for external flash, so sync is not of much interest.

 

[J-see]

? Today's DSLR has both, mirror and focal plane shutter. The mirror cannot be used for shutter.



Buy a compact camera then, and you've got exactly that. It is not considered the best way (could call it ancient, compared to todays CMOS). Probably doesn't even provide for external flash, so sync is not of much interest.

I like the mirror not for the mirror itself but for the principle because I'm not fond of the idea my sensor would be constantly exposed when my cam is activated.

Anyways, there's probably some reason why we use shutters but I wouldn't mind getting rid of them. I always have to laugh when I read the silent and extremely quiet sales talk about zoom-lenses and when I have one attached to my cam and shoot bursts, it's as if a knight in armor stumbles down the stairs. For nature photography that's the equivalent of shooting with a gun. If there's one thing I like about my d3300 it's it being so quiet in comparison to my D750.


I read old age comes with loss of hearing so I have high hopes one day I'll be shooting silently.


Edit:

I was googling and I'm not the only one that thinks we could use a modern approach:

https://www.aptina.com/products/technology/aptina_global-shutter.jsp

The idea is oh so simple; an on-off timer. As you see, it is perfectly possible.

Can someone wake up Nikon?

 

[Paganman2]

Right folks - i tried an experiment out on this theory today, i was out with the wife enjoying some sun in a near by wildlife park, but i was also shooting planes going over on airways at the same time, with one of the planes that came directly over me i quickly turned vr off and was at f8 and 1/1000th, i stood in the middle of one of the paths and tried to brace myself to follow the plane a small distance to take the shot, i had a solid focus dot but i just couldnt follow the plane with my eye through the viewfinder with accuracy to know i had nailed it, so i quickly turned vr on and was able to follow the plane clearly and fired away.
When i got home and viewed both pics the first one without vr was O.O.F, and the second shot with vr on was lovely and sharp.

This confirmed for me anyway that VR is good and can save shots, but only from the visual through the viewfinder to allow me a stable view, even if it wasn't needed at the lens end, this in my eyes would be a Fantastic tool if the guys at nikon could do it - create a VR device in the camera body viewfinder that corrected in the same visual way but just for our eyesight, and not affect the image through the lens and on to the sensor if we didn't need to.
At lower shutter speeds as this is built into most of out lenses we could have the option to just use it on from the lens in the normal way.

P.

 

[Eyelight]

Right folks - i tried an experiment out on this theory today, i was out with the wife enjoying some sun in a near by wildlife park, but i was also shooting planes going over on airways at the same time, with one of the planes that came directly over me i quickly turned vr off and was at f8 and 1/1000th, i stood in the middle of one of the paths and tried to brace myself to follow the plane a small distance to take the shot, i had a solid focus dot but i just couldnt follow the plane with my eye through the viewfinder with accuracy to know i had nailed it, so i quickly turned vr on and was able to follow the plane clearly and fired away.
When i got home and viewed both pics the first one without vr was O.O.F, and the second shot with vr on was lovely and sharp.

This confirmed for me anyway that VR is good and can save shots, but only from the visual through the viewfinder to allow me a stable view, even if it wasn't needed at the lens end, this in my eyes would be a Fantastic tool if the guys at nikon could do it - create a VR device in the camera body viewfinder that corrected in the same visual way but just for our eyesight, and not affect the image through the lens and on to the sensor if we didn't need to.
At lower shutter speeds as this is built into most of out lenses we could have the option to just use it on from the lens in the normal way.

P.

I see what you're thinking, but doubt there is a way to stabilize only the viewfinder or that it would yield the expected results. VR is not only allowing you to stay on target, but it is keeping the focus point on target.

 

[Paganman2]

I see what you're thinking, but doubt there is a way to stabilize only the viewfinder or that it would yield the expected results. VR is not only allowing you to stay on target, but it is keeping the focus point on target.

Indeed, and i think this is the Crucial thing once you are at or slightly above your lens eqv say 450mm then that should provide a motionless image and no need to reduce vibrations by lens, however as agreed we do need to still the motion in the finder so we can keep that focus spot on the subject, hence where a kind of focusing screen vibration reduction in the viewfinder possibly by similar methods involving moving glass screen components like a lens, if they can do this in a lens i bet they can in the finder.

P.

 

[Eyelight]

OK folks. I thought about starting a new thread, but decided to continue here and added some notes back at the beginning and a bit before the derailment so future readers can bypass the train wreck.


I'm satisfied that viewfinder image stabilization is a plus regardless of shutter speed. But I'm still curious when/if there is a real reason to turn VR off.

Some manuals indicate the need for a half-press to engage VR and let it stabilize. Does a quick-draw and shoot cause an issue?

Does burst shooting present a problem?

Does focal length matter?

What I'd like to see is images that show good results. If anyone wants to push the limits and cannot produce an acceptably sharp image, a brief comment to that effort and result would also be welcome.

NOTE: While an acceptably sharp image using VR at a high shutter, in burst mode or other possibly non-standard use tells us something, blurry images simply don't mean anything to this project whether with VR on or off. There are too many ways to make a blurry image.

Here is one more I found in the archive at 1/2500 with VR on.

985 pixels wide from a 6016 pixel original

 

[mikew_RIP]

Did a quick on and off test yesterday,not the sort of subject that proves any thing but i did notice something about the images,both taken within the time it takes to switch VR off so both carry the same exposure details,matrix metering and no PP apart from the standard 25% sharpening ACR applies

Not making this a guessing game so the first one is VR on,now the difference in exposure is what hit me.

 

[J-see]

The difference made me curious but when I check the EXIF, I see some value differences between both in certain parts. Maybe something got auto-applied or corrected?

If you check both shots here:

Jeffrey Friedl's Exif (Image Metadata) Viewer

Scroll down in the XMP info and you'll encounter the different values.

Here's a rough screen of both next to the other.

 

[mikew_RIP]

The difference made me curious but when I check the EXIF, I see some value differences between both in certain parts. Maybe something got auto-applied or corrected?

I see your link when i quote but it will not work,shall we take this over to the Tamron problem thread as i would like to discuss it but at this stage it may just derail this thread again

 

[Paganman2]

Did a quick on and off test yesterday,not the sort of subject that proves any thing but i did notice something about the images,both taken within the time it takes to switch VR off so both carry the same exposure details,matrix metering and no PP apart from the standard 25% sharpening ACR applies



View attachment 146082

View attachment 146083

Not making this a guessing game so the first one is VR on,now the difference in exposure is what hit me.

I have noticed that as well - i thought i used to imagine it with my 55-300Vr on my old d70s, the same difference in exposure happened with me despite me shooting exactly the same.

P.

 

[Paganman2]

Perhaps the moving of the elements with VR on is somehow changing the exposure or contrast slightly when compared to when its off? when i noticed it before it was on a model plane that was gray and red in color, and the red looked more saturated in one of the pictures - just cant remember which...

P.

 

[Paganman2]

Another thing i was thinking - could the physical handling of the lens have any impact on Vr? E.G if you are holding the lens pointing upwards with the wight of the lens falling towards the back, could this have any affect when compared to holding the lens flat where the weight is uniform?
Just an idea probably a stupid one...

P.

 

[Eyelight]

Perhaps the moving of the elements with VR on is somehow changing the exposure or contrast slightly when compared to when its off? when i noticed it before it was on a model plane that was gray and red in color, and the red looked more saturated in one of the pictures - just cant remember which...

P.

VR does change the frame and therefore can affect the exposure, though imagine should be slight, if any thing is set to auto.

Another thing i was thinking - could the physical handling of the lens have any impact on Vr? E.G if you are holding the lens pointing upwards with the wight of the lens falling towards the back, could this have any affect when compared to holding the lens flat where the weight is uniform?
Just an idea probably a stupid one...

P.

VR seems to function when a lens is pointed straight up, but makes sense it could be a little different. Gravity would have to have an impact, but not sure if VR knows the difference or not. I've not read any on vertical shooting, but it is at least a question mark?