# I finally figured out VR: A few examples



## Raj_55555 (Nov 4, 2014)

I was trying to figure out why VR was making my images soft, I mean noticeably soft! Turns out, if possible, we should wait 3 to 4 seconds after focusing before we completely push the shutter button, this allows the VR to settle down and the image is not as soft anymore. Here are a few examples, all taken in pretty dark enclosures.
I really really love the first one, but have a feeling that it's one of those images that the photographer tends to get partial about, what do you guys think? Any weaknesses, feedbacks and criticisms are most welcome, always look forward to learning something new 

#1. Grey Crowned Crane looking fabulous! 







#2. Yesh Yesh!! That's the spot!!






#3. Tastes Funny!







#4. And of course, the obligatory kitty  (Non-VR)


----------



## gsgary (Nov 4, 2014)

That's crap having to wait that long turn it off and use a faster shutter speed never had need for image stability even on my 300f2.8L


----------



## mmaria (Nov 4, 2014)

I love the first one!


----------



## sm4him (Nov 4, 2014)

Hmmm, you really shouldn't have to wait that long for your VR to work; it should be pretty instant and seamless and just...work.  Makes me wonder if something has gone wonkers with it on that lens.

At any rate, looks like your solution is working well for you!  Love the birds, of course.
I do wish we could see the face on the first one; I suspect what you love about it is those nice, sharp feathers. And I do like the "line" of the bird, the way it leans across the frame. I just wish we could at least see an eye.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 4, 2014)

3-4sec is a bit of a stretch, but yes, the 70-300 needs to settle down a bit before you should shoot.  My image jumps like crazy when it clunks on.

I much prefer the Tamron's VC over Nikon's VR; it engages smoother/quiter and feels almost gyroscopic when engaged.  Whenever I'm _not_ using VC it's very apparent looking in the viewfinder.

It's a marvelous invention.


----------



## Raj_55555 (Nov 4, 2014)

gsgary said:


> That's crap having to wait that long turn it off and use a faster shutter speed never had need for image stability even on my 300f2.8L


True! But there are cases where you just can't go any higher with the shutter speed, like in these cases. I was already at ISO 640, so VR was essential for these shots. And having f2.8 will actually help not having to use VR, than the other way around. For shots where i can wait a few seconds, I don't see the demerit in using it if I can.


mmaria said:


> I love the first one!


Thanks, that's all I need to hear


----------



## gsgary (Nov 4, 2014)

Raj_55555 said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > That's crap having to wait that long turn it off and use a faster shutter speed never had need for image stability even on my 300f2.8L
> ...


Iso640 is not high


----------



## goooner (Nov 4, 2014)

Nice shots Raj, I would have thought ISO 800, or around 1000 should have little enough noise to use. I also love that 1st one. Pity about the cold weather coming I would have loved to have gone to the zoo again soon.


----------



## Raj_55555 (Nov 4, 2014)

sm4him said:


> Hmmm, you really shouldn't have to wait that long for your VR to work; it should be pretty instant and seamless and just...work. Makes me wonder if something has gone wonkers with it on that lens.
> At any rate, looks like your solution is working well for you! Love the birds, of course.
> I do wish we could see the face on the first one; I suspect what you love about it is those nice, sharp feathers. And I do like the "line" of the bird, the way it leans across the frame. I just wish we could at least see an eye.


I actually didn't try without waiting that long, maybe I'm waiting a bit too long. I came to know of this by reading a blog, and it said to wait 5 seconds. I will try with with fewer seconds in between and see how it turns out.
And yes, I love the sharp feathers, thanks to the 70-300  I guess. I waited a long time for the eye shot, but he was just not interested in curving his head like that again, and the shots were just boring! 


Braineack said:


> 3-4sec is a bit of a stretch, but yes, the 70-300 needs to settle down a bit before you should shoot.  My image jumps like crazy when it clunks on.
> 
> I much prefer the Tamron's VC over Nikon's VR; it engages smoother/quiter and feels almost gyroscopic when engaged.  Whenever I'm _not_ using VC it's very apparent looking in the viewfinder.
> 
> It's a marvelous invention.


 
Yes, that's what I observed, and I've heard some good things about the VC. Now I'm wondering whether I should have gone with the Tammy, but that feeling will always be there when I get a new lens


----------



## Raj_55555 (Nov 4, 2014)

gsgary said:


> Iso640 is not high


It is on my D100, the max I go to is ISO 800. Anything above that usually doesn't turn out right in it. For the newer cameras, you're right it's not that high.


goooner said:


> Nice shots Raj, I would have thought ISO 800, or around 1000 should have little enough noise to use. I also love that 1st one. Pity about the cold weather coming I would have loved to have gone to the zoo again soon.


Thanks Gooner, much appreciated  As I said, 800 is probably the highest I'd go on my D100, but I understand what you're saying. The funny thing is, it's great that the cold weather is coming as all sorts of birds migrate to the lake at our local zoo and a lot of subjects to shoot from 
Sorry it didn't work out that way for you! 




Braineack said:


> I'd rather just use VC and not give a **** what Gary thinks.


You sure know how to be subtle!


----------



## limr (Nov 4, 2014)

Kitty AND parrots!! 

Sorry, Raj, I have absolutely nothing to say about the VR. Don't even know what it is. All I know is that I like the pictures! It's true about the eye inthe first one, but it's still a beautiful picture. Such lovely lines and bursts of light. And I love the expression on the front bird's face in the second shot. And the kitty, of course  Great colors in all of them.


----------



## D-B-J (Nov 4, 2014)

That's some stunning light on that crane!!! Nicely done Raj. 

Jake


----------



## Braineack (Nov 4, 2014)

Raj_55555 said:


> I waited a long time for the eye shot, but he was just not interested in curving his head like that again, and the shots were just boring!



lack of eye made the shot.  it's almost abstract at this point, and somehow it made it into the Nov POTM list...


----------



## D-B-J (Nov 4, 2014)

Braineack said:


> Raj_55555 said:
> 
> 
> > I waited a long time for the eye shot, but he was just not interested in curving his head like that again, and the shots were just boring!
> ...



Good! I was going to nominate it [emoji106]


----------



## Raj_55555 (Nov 4, 2014)

limr said:


> Kitty AND parrots!!
> 
> Sorry, Raj, I have absolutely nothing to say about the VR. Don't even know what it is. All I know is that I like the pictures! It's true about the eye inthe first one, but it's still a beautiful picture. Such lovely lines and bursts of light. And I love the expression on the front bird's face in the second shot. And the kitty, of course  Great colors in all of them.


Thanks Leonore, and I envy you for that. You know the wonderful world of films, I hope someday I start with films as well, just for the fun of it. 



D-B-J said:


> That's some stunning light on that crane!!! Nicely done Raj.
> Jake


Thanks Jake..Lucky for me, the lighting came out the way I thought it would. Sometimes the pictures just don't translate well! 



Braineack said:


> lack of eye made the shot.  it's almost abstract at this point, and somehow it made it into the Nov POTM list...





D-B-J said:


> Good! I was going to nominate it [emoji106]


How about that! Never thought I'd make it into that list as a serious entrant.Thanks a lot guys!


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 4, 2014)

#1 looks really cool in portrait orientation as well.


----------



## Msteelio91 (Nov 4, 2014)

I also love the first shot Raj, super work man


----------



## Raj_55555 (Nov 4, 2014)

JacaRanda said:


> #1 looks really cool in portrait orientation as well.


Thanks.. umm.. but I'm not able to visualize what you mean!  How will this work in portrait orientation? 


Msteelio91 said:


> I also love the first shot Raj, super work man


Thanks a ton Matt


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 4, 2014)

Raj_55555 said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > #1 looks really cool in portrait orientation as well.
> ...



I rotated my neck 90 degrees to the left    You would rotate it 90 degrees clockwise.  Either way, SWEETNESS!


----------



## Raj_55555 (Nov 4, 2014)

JacaRanda said:


> I rotated my neck 90 degrees to the left    You would rotate it 90 degrees clockwise.  Either way, SWEETNESS!


 I get it now! And yes it does work that way as well, you have quite a vision there my friend.. Thanks so much for the nice word 
@gsgary  Thanks for disagreeing with me man, although it would really help to know what it is that you're disagreeing with. Just saying!


----------



## bribrius (Nov 4, 2014)

I like 1, I don't know how far I like one though. Like it is neat to look at, but if you didn't tell me I wouldn't really know wth I was looking at. which after a little would probably bother me more than make me like it.  so it is neat, but.... to a point.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 5, 2014)

Raj_55555 said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > I rotated my neck 90 degrees to the left    You would rotate it 90 degrees clockwise.  Either way, SWEETNESS!
> ...


I disagreed that VR is a marvellous invention, it adds to the weight, size and price


----------



## Raj_55555 (Nov 5, 2014)

bribrius said:


> I like 1, I don't know how far I like one though. Like it is neat to look at, but if you didn't tell me I wouldn't really know wth I was looking at. which after a little would probably bother me more than make me like it. so it is neat, but.... to a point.


Thanks for giving an honest feedback bribrius, we wouldn't really improve much if everyone of us looked at a photograph the same way. 


gsgary said:


> I disagreed that VR is a marvellous invention, it adds to the weight, size and price


Ok, I try really hard not to offend anyone, but you don't really think before you argue; do you?
Yes it adds to the weight, size and price and so does just about any other additional feature incorporated into any lens. Having a faster lens for example; your 300 f2.8 also adds to the weight, size and the price considerably and that comes at a price we are willing to pay for the additional features we gain, faster shutter speed in this case.
And if your point is that the additional weight and the size are not worth it in case of VR, these pictures speak for themselves. I tried the exact same shots at that time without the VR on, and I didn't PP even a single one of those shots.
I don't mind at all if you disagree with a certain point I (or anyone else) puts forward, I just request you to be a little more logical about it.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 5, 2014)

If you read my other posts I have sold the 300 it didnt have IS and I didn't need it I have never had it in the old day we didn't have, now everyone seems to need it because they don't know how to get the shot without it


----------



## Raj_55555 (Nov 5, 2014)

gsgary said:


> If you read my other posts I have sold the 300 it didnt have IS and I didn't need it I have never had it in the old day we didn't have, now everyone seems to need it because they don't know how to get the shot without it


*sigh* There are N things I have in my mind right now that shows exactly how lame the argument "*in the old day we didn't have, now everyone seems to need it*" is, but I realize now that it would be pointless to take this any further!


----------



## D-B-J (Nov 5, 2014)

gsgary said:


> If you read my other posts I have sold the 300 it didnt have IS and I didn't need it I have never had it in the old day we didn't have, now everyone seems to need it because they don't know how to get the shot without it



And in the old days they didn't have cameras that shot at 11fps and ISO 16000 etc etc etc. Your argument is Ill-formed and purposely inflammatory. Just because you can take a "good" shot at 1/30th @200mm doesn't mean you can't take a GREAT shot at the same settings with VR. Vibration reduction is a tool, just like everything else in photography. It's purpose is to be used, and I've found many a time when its HIGHLY useful. Heck, one of my favorite shots wouldn't have been possible without VR. Where I might have once needed a tripod and remote, I now need neither. 

Also, do you actually provide useful posts? I swear all you do is troll, to me and other forum members, and it's getting old. If you have no useful input to help the OP out, then don't post at all. It's that simple.

Jake


----------



## sashbar (Nov 5, 2014)

I am partial to the first one as well. Great shot.


----------



## D-B-J (Nov 5, 2014)

sashbar said:


> I am partial to the first one as well. Great shot.


I think it's the abstract/highlighting that I like so much. It's a photo I find myself looking at over and over.


----------



## Raj_55555 (Nov 5, 2014)

sashbar said:


> I am partial to the first one as well. Great shot.


Thanks Sashbar, much appreciated! I think I might just get it printed 


D-B-J said:


> I think it's the abstract/highlighting that I like so much. It's a photo I find myself looking at over and over.


Yes, I couldn't figure out why I was liking this shot so much until Braineack pointed out the exact same thing. Thanks again Jake!


----------

