Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="J-see" data-source="post: 448192" data-attributes="member: 31330">I've been doing some quick VR test. I took shots using AF-S single shots each time from 1/400s down to 1/10s and then checked them in post at 100% to see shake.From 1/400s to 1/160s everything was normal.From 1/125s to 1/100s it didn't perform too well.From 1/60s to 1/50s it started to pick up again and did reasonable ok.From 1/40s to 1/20s it actually did better then the previous.1/10s was the end of it.I did try to take an as good shot as possible each time but I'm sure I didn't always succeed. I've certainly not been shooting like a gunslinger. My long lens technique is also subpar.This is not a very scientific test but even so 1/125s-1/100s was noticeable weaker. Then again I was surprised to take good shots below 1/40s. You have to keep in mind I'd need around 1/360s to shoot the lens handheld if I'd not use VR. I got 23% more pixels which picks up shake 23% faster too.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="J-see, post: 448192, member: 31330"] I've been doing some quick VR test. I took shots using AF-S single shots each time from 1/400s down to 1/10s and then checked them in post at 100% to see shake. From 1/400s to 1/160s everything was normal. From 1/125s to 1/100s it didn't perform too well. From 1/60s to 1/50s it started to pick up again and did reasonable ok. From 1/40s to 1/20s it actually did better then the previous. 1/10s was the end of it. I did try to take an as good shot as possible each time but I'm sure I didn't always succeed. I've certainly not been shooting like a gunslinger. My long lens technique is also subpar. This is not a very scientific test but even so 1/125s-1/100s was noticeable weaker. Then again I was surprised to take good shots below 1/40s. You have to keep in mind I'd need around 1/360s to shoot the lens handheld if I'd not use VR. I got 23% more pixels which picks up shake 23% faster too. [/QUOTE]

Verification