Question on VR and f stop

I generally didn't worry too much on VR for lens less than 100mm. If mounted on tripod, I was told we should switch off the VR. Some people also say you just increase shutter speed to overcome shake.

So, if you trade a slow lens to a faster one without VR. Would it helps?

It depends. It always depends.

I just purchased a 16-35mm f4g that has VR. My initial thought was, "Why?!". 20 seconds after I unpacked it and stuck it on my camera I was at my desk in a dark office staring through the viewfinder with the meter telling me that I needed 1/4 sec exposure at f4 and ISO 400 to shoot my desk. I took a breath, gently squeezed the shutter and was amazed at the tack sharp image. I did it again, and again, and again, at everywhere between 16mm and 35mm. The rule I've lived by is that you're bound to get some movement, regardless of how good your technique, about 50% of the time when your shutter speed is below your focal length (i.e. 16mm lens requires at least 1/16sec, 35mm requires at least 1/35 sec). These were all taken at 1/4 sec and were sharp as can be.

My rule is VR is not only for long lenses, it's for when there's less light than you would otherwise need.

So, what does "less light than you would otherwise need" mean? It means that you can't (or prefer not to) get ISO high enough or aperture wide enough to increase your shutter speed to where you want it. Going from a long lens at f5.6 with VR to one at f2.8 VR might get you over that line, but at a loss of depth of field that you would otherwise want (guitar player from that great band's nose is in focus, but not the rest of his face).

Only you know how your shooting technique impacts camera movement. Only you know the lighting conditions you'll be shooting under. Those are the factors that should go into the VR decision. From there, lens swaps for me are based on quality and what I want to get out of them. When I consider a bright lens I'm looking more for narrow depth of field and help in low light, and not the need to compensate for no VR.

That was a great answer. So, If I would to purchase the latest d600 and be able to shoot at 64,000 iso, would the70-300 be the better option?

Bukitimah said:

That was a great answer. So, If I would to purchase the latest d600 and be able to shoot at 64,000 iso, would the70-300 be the better option?

Click to expand...

Not if you're shooting landscapes in bright sunlight. But perhaps if you're a paparazzi shooting through celebrities windows at night.

You've only asked about VR. There's a range of "better options" for every type of photograph and every photographer. You haven't given us enough information to make a determination of what might work for you.

I recently try to shoot some birds and have the opportunity to encounter this scene. However, this kingfisher is having his meal in a shady tree. I need to reduce speed and the result isn't great.

Birds will always push cameras to the edge in terms of ISO and lenses in terms of focal length. If you're shooting birds you want VR. Period. A shot like this, where the bird is at least perched, camera movement will get you just as easily as bird movement. Even if your shutter speed is enough to cover your focal length (which it is here), the bird's head may still move enough that 1/400 will still not capture the details. Most bird guys I know want to shoot at and preferably above 1/640sec, and at 1/1000 for birds in flight. Only way to do that reliably is to bump up the ISO. You're at 800 already, which is pretty typical in my experience for bird shots on an overcast day. A lot of folks I know will go to 1600, but my experience with that and my D7000 is that it's pushing the noise envelope. You may do a little better with the D300, but perhaps not.

It's all a trade-off. I do a lot of birds and am completing a move to shooting nothing but FX. I get much better noise reduction at the ISO's I want/need to shoot at, but at the cost of the 50% bump I get in focal length on the DX (500mm on an FX acts like a 750mm on a DX). But I've found that by cropping a little more I actually get a better image, though perhaps at the loss of megapixels. So I don't go past 8x10's on some of the prints, right?

Hope that helps. I would definitely stick with a VR lens for the work you're doing. Know how far you can go with the ISO under specific conditions, shoot RAW (if you're not already) and use the noise reduction features in Lightroom or whatever post processing software you're using.

I have seen the difference in picture quality when the lens starts to perceive movement as you shaking when on a tripod. Shut the VR off and good to go. It doesn't happen every time, just the shots you most want and don't think to shut it off. Good ole Murphy's Law.

Besides, we're only talking about the second it takes to flip a switch.

Today I visit the Nikon Service Centre and spoke to the person 'demonstrating' their product in their show room. In his opinion, iso is just an electronics way of improving lighting to allow faster speed and 'brighten' the image. It is not the optical way for quality image.

He feels that a faster lens is the way. I took the opportunity to try our from the D7000, D600, D800 and the D4. I agree that at higher ISO, sharpness of the image is impeded.

Of course a picture is still better than no picture. Looks like the lens is the key. He feels the D7100 is something to look out for.

Just remember, he can sell you glass and bodies. ISO doesn't put money in his pocket.

He's right that boosting ISO will impact image quality. But I don't care how fast your glass is, even with a 300mm f2.8 at over $5K you're going to have to boost your ISO to shoot that bird on a cloudy day. The key is to find a camera that will not compromise quality at reasonable ISO settings. FX sensors will surely give you better IQ at higher ISO, but at a higher initial cost. I am blown away by the IQ on my D600 even at ISO's over 1000.

Here are a coupl bird in flight shots taken with my D7000 at ISO 1000...





And another taken at ISO 800...




All 3 were subjected to some (not severe) post processing noise reduction in Lightroom 4. As were these two, taken with my D600 at ISO 800.







You can see the difference (at least I can), but both cameras perform superbly at those ISO's.

I suspect that the D7100 will be as good or better than the D7000, but please read my post about the buffer size in the new camera in the D7100 forum.

Bukitimah said:

In his opinion, iso is just an electronics way of improving lighting to allow faster speed and 'brighten' the image. It is not the optical way for quality image.

Click to expand...

Not just his opinion, that's exactly what it does.
ISO is a term used for the speed of film (how quickly it reacts with light). Higher speed film was more grainy and gave lower "resolution". Similar in a way to higher digital ISO.
The digital age has continued using the same equivalent rating for the image sensor for easy comparison..

Talking digital only now. At the cameras native ISO the sensor is running without any amplification.
As you increase the ISO, the sensor is being amplified above it's natural (native) ability.
Just like amplifying sound causes background hiss or distortion, amplifying the cameras image sensor causes unwanted anomalies. We call it noise even though it's not sound distortion.

The more you amplify an image, the more the anomalies show themselves.
The camera sensors and the amplifying hardware/software as so good that the "noise" is not visible until much higher ISO values than just a few years ago.

ISO will never be better than glass but it will always help any lens when conditions get tricky.

I think I can agree that the lens is more important than ISO since you can rely on Lightroom to make adjustment if required later. The iso setting does help you to take that picture which otherwise would be impossible in the 1st place.

After all your advices, I realise most of my picture with higher iso that not clear is also due to my cropping. Since my zoom power is not enough, I crop the picture and thus the image is not sharp.

Will work on them again,

There's not much you can do with reach, which is why I soon learned that I needed a 150-500mm because 300mm wasn't enough for what I wanted to shoot. You can only cram so much detail into a pixel, no matter what the ISO.