VR? Not so much... [Archive] - Digital Camera Resource Page Forums

erichlund

01-02-2008, 09:35 AM

I got a new 55-200 VR lens, and it seems to make all my pictures blurry when I have the VR on. I thought it was supposed to be the other way around?

Once you half press the shutter release to focus, you have to wait a moment for the VR to take effect. You will notice your viewfinder becomes suddenly steadier. That's when you can fully depress the shutter release and get the shot.

tfa8rva

01-02-2008, 09:43 AM

Can you post an example and tell us the settings used?
Sure. The first one is with the VR on, and the second is with it off. These pics are just examples and nothing more. I've also added the properties of the pic with the difference only being the VR. Thanks,

Jay

tfa8rva

01-02-2008, 09:45 AM

Once you half press the shutter release to focus, you have to wait a moment for the VR to take effect. You will notice your viewfinder becomes suddenly steadier. That's when you can fully depress the shutter release and get the shot.

Yeah, I understand that, but it still produces blurry images.

Aldor88

01-02-2008, 10:10 AM

Your lens seems to be defective, I'd send it in foor repair or exchange it for another.

tfa8rva

01-02-2008, 12:24 PM

I will be taking the lens back this weekend, and pending some test pics I guess they will replace it.

Thanks.

VTEC_EATER

01-02-2008, 12:33 PM

Sure. The first one is with the VR on, and the second is with it off. These pics are just examples and nothing more. I've also added the properties of the pic with the difference only being the VR. Thanks,

Jay

Where and how were these photos taken? Were you standing on a boat, or in a bouncy car? Was the camera on a tripod?

Im trying to figure out if the VR was confused because of these possible factors.

If they were both hand held taken one after the next, I would wonder if Nikon accidentally wired the switch backwards. That would be pretty funny.

In any event, I would probably send it into Nikon for service.

tfa8rva

01-02-2008, 01:25 PM

These were taken without a tripod, but I was standing on a pretty solid rock jetty that sticks out into the water. They were shot back to back. I have some night shots that were shot on a tripod that exhibit the same blurriness with the VR on, but I do not have those shots here to upload. Those were long exposure shots. It would be funny if they put the switch backwards, but I would expect sharper images with it on than I am currently producing with it off.

3In2Out

01-02-2008, 02:06 PM

Do you notice the view in the view finder slowing down when you press the shutter half way, be it in "on" or "off"?

tfa8rva

01-02-2008, 02:13 PM

With it on I could notice that the image through the viewfinder would sort of come to a stop when I pressed the shutter halfway, and I could hear it doing something. Not the case with it off. So I know the switch was right and that it was doing something...just not well.

domenic

01-02-2008, 03:08 PM

I'm 99% convinced the swicth on that lens is reversed hehe. Would still ask for a replacement as it appears it's been a friday afternoon build. lol :p

Regards

Dom

K1W1

01-02-2008, 03:15 PM

I have some night shots that were shot on a tripod that exhibit the same blurriness with the VR on, but I do not have those shots here to upload. Those were long exposure shots.

VR does not work with long exposures and generally you should not have it switched on when the camera is mounted on a tripod.

tfa8rva

01-02-2008, 03:18 PM

VR does not work with long exposures and generally you should not have it switched on when the camera is mounted on a tripod.

Sorry...learning curve, and I figured as much. I did get some nice shots with the VR turned off that night. I was more concerned with the shots that had the faster shutter speeds that were blurry.

fionndruinne

01-02-2008, 08:19 PM

I would wonder if Nikon accidentally wired the switch backwards. That would be pretty funny.

Nah, I'll bet it was Canon switched wires while Nikon's back was turned.:p

XaiLo

01-02-2008, 08:27 PM

I concur it should not be behaving in this mannner. Did you purchase it locally if so take it straight back to them.

tcadwall

01-03-2008, 05:17 AM

Defective, at 1/100s I would expect fairly sharp pictures. The waves might not be crisp as the VR will not stop the motion, but the blur is not wave movement. It actually looks to me like the switch is fine, but the VR is working backward, in other words I think it is making the movement TWICE as bad as it really is. This would also explain why you are hearing the VR work, and the problem probably exacerbates itself, because it is trying to correct its OWN exagerration. Kinda like having a recursive function that gets further and further from the controlling kickout...

tfa8rva

01-03-2008, 10:23 AM

I concur it should not be behaving in this mannner. Did you purchase it locally if so take it straight back to them.

Yep, I purchased it at Ritz Camera near my house. I'm taking it back this weekend, and I guess they will either replace it or show me what I'm doing wrong.

tcadwall

01-07-2008, 08:08 AM

Curious as to the outcome.

tfa8rva

01-07-2008, 01:53 PM

The outcome? Well I went out to shoot some more pics this weekend, and it worked flawlessly. :confused: Anyhow, I never did take it back because it seemed to be working now, and I didn't want it to be like it is when I take my car to the shop. Example below is taken with VR on at 180mm, F/5.6, 1/400th.

e_dawg

01-07-2008, 05:26 PM

Sounds like typical finnicky VR behaviour to me. I find VR doesn't work very consistently for faster shutter speeds (1/80 to 1/200 sec) at longer focal lengths unless you have the midas touch. It does an awesome job at slower shutter speeds (1/8 to 1/40 sec). I notice the same behaviour on both my 70-300/VR and 18-200/VRII lenses with all 3 of my Nikon bodies, as have a dozen others on the dpreview forums.

tfa8rva

01-07-2008, 07:30 PM

Yeah, I guess that's what it was. I will say that when it works, it works well. No complaints on its performance this weekend.

toriaj

01-07-2008, 07:58 PM

Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought there's no need for VR at 180 mm, 1/400 sec.? Isn't that easily handholdable?

jcon

01-07-2008, 08:33 PM

Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought there's no need for VR at 180 mm, 1/400 sec.? Isn't that easily handholdable?

I agree and even more so, its a moving subject, VR doesnt help with that.

tfa8rva

01-07-2008, 08:49 PM

Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought there's no need for VR at 180 mm, 1/400 sec.? Isn't that easily handholdable?

Sorry, I'm new to the whole DSLR thing, and I'm still learning about all this stuff. So I'm sure that you are correct, but I thought that 1/125 should also have been handholdable, but it wasn't. Maybe this was a bad example photo, but I took lots of photos that were of fixed objects this weekend at slower shutter speeds, and they all came out much better than my prior attempts. So I'm not sure......maybe it was user error. Anyhow, I'm much happier with the results now.

Jay

toriaj

01-07-2008, 11:32 PM

Sorry, I'm new to the whole DSLR thing, and I'm still learning about all this stuff. So I'm sure that you are correct, but I thought that 1/125 should also have been handholdable, but it wasn't.

I had to figure this out too. What works for me now is to remember the old rule: you can handhold 1/focal length. Meaning, if you're shooting at 60 mm, you can handhold no longer than 1/60 sec. BUT you have to remember the crop factor of your camera. Mine is 1.5x (I think the D80 is too.) So, I have to add half again, meaning, if I'm shooting at 60 mm, I add 1/2 (30) so I can handhold no longer than 1/90 sec.

This usually is no problem unless I'm shooting at long focal lengths. If I'm at 250 mm, sometimes there just isn't enough light to use a 1/375 (make that 1/400 in "real" speeds) shutter speed. Open aperture, bump ISO, gripe, take out tripod :D

But in your case, anytime you can't handhold the shutter speed, that's the time to break out the VR.

fionndruinne

01-08-2008, 12:54 AM

Yeah, there was really no need for VR in the last shot you posted... and if anything, since it involved motion, I would have increased the ISO to at least 200. Heck, my D40's lowest setting is 200, which would have been even faster a shutter than 1/400. For that shot you could have afforded to limit the aperture a little more as well.

Remember, the only real importance of VR is at shots of less than 1/focal length (+crop factor) shutter speeds.

tcadwall

01-08-2008, 06:03 AM

remember the old rule: you can handhold 1/focal length.With VR you CAN break that rule a bit - if you have better than average steadiness you can trounce on that rule with VR.:cool:

Can you imagine if the nifty fifty had VR?!?! That would be awesome for weddings in dark chapels - huh?

If I were the OP I would definitely start doing some REAL tests with lower shutter speeds. Use the "old rule" above, and if it has good results try to push that rule a bit. So far there is no proof that you aren't still using a VR lemon.

tfa8rva

01-08-2008, 09:01 AM

If I were the OP I would definitely start doing some REAL tests with lower shutter speeds. Use the "old rule" above, and if it has good results try to push that rule a bit. So far there is no proof that you aren't still using a VR lemon.

I will do some more testing when I get out of work this afternoon and post the results.