Fuji's XF 100-400mm zoom beats Nikon's 300mm f/4.0 VR prime.

On 8/3/2016 4:56 PM, RichA wrote:
I saw it in a magazine, a convincing win for the Fuji despite the fact it was a zoom against a prime lens. Nikon's earlier 300mm lenses can be had for half the price, but are not recommended as they have no VR. Both Fuji and Nikon run about $2000.00.


If you're shooing birds at high speeds, VR only slows things down. I
find I get better focus tracking without VR.



--
PeterN

On 2016-08-04 14:53:08 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/3/2016 4:56 PM, RichA wrote:
I saw it in a magazine, a convincing win for the Fuji despite the fact
it was a zoom against a prime lens. Nikon's earlier 300mm lenses can
be had for half the price, but are not recommended as they have no VR.
Both Fuji and Nikon run about $2000.00.


If you're shooing birds at high speeds, VR only slows things down. I
find I get better focus tracking without VR.

Has that actually been documented by anybody, other than with your
personal experience?
....or is that some sort of unverified speculation?

VR/OS was on for this shot.
https://db.tt/FChe5Y5t


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 08:43:01 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-08-04 14:53:08 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/3/2016 4:56 PM, RichA wrote:
I saw it in a magazine, a convincing win for the Fuji despite the fact
it was a zoom against a prime lens. Nikon's earlier 300mm lenses can
be had for half the price, but are not recommended as they have no VR.
Both Fuji and Nikon run about $2000.00.


If you're shooing birds at high speeds, VR only slows things down. I
find I get better focus tracking without VR.

Has that actually been documented by anybody, other than with your
personal experience?
...or is that some sort of unverified speculation?

VR/OS was on for this shot.
https://db.tt/FChe5Y5t

See https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/33448760 for comments on the
effect of VR on focussing.

In http://www.bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm Thom Hogan explains why VR
should be switched off unless you actually need it.

And another explanation
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/...d-when-turn-it
or http://tinyurl.com/pvvubgh

I think Peter is right (but maybe for the wrong reasons?).
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

If you're shooing birds at high speeds, VR only slows things down. I
find I get better focus tracking without VR.

Has that actually been documented by anybody, other than with your
personal experience?
...or is that some sort of unverified speculation?

VR/OS was on for this shot.
https://db.tt/FChe5Y5t

See https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/33448760 for comments on the
effect of VR on focussing.

not much there other than people guessing.

In http://www.bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm Thom Hogan explains why VR
should be switched off unless you actually need it.

that doesn't address focus speed issues. he's also being misleading.

And another explanation

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/...ns/image-stabi
lization-when-use-it-and-when-turn-it
or http://tinyurl.com/pvvubgh

more fluff.

I think Peter is right (but maybe for the wrong reasons?).

he's wrong.

vr *helps* autofocus speed because with the image stabilized, the focus
points can remain on the same parts of the image.

without stabilization, the subject will be bouncing around, making it
very difficult for autofocus to track and/or lock.

On 8/4/2016 6:06 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

If you're shooing birds at high speeds, VR only slows things down. I
find I get better focus tracking without VR.

Has that actually been documented by anybody, other than with your
personal experience?
...or is that some sort of unverified speculation?

VR/OS was on for this shot.
https://db.tt/FChe5Y5t

See https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/33448760 for comments on the
effect of VR on focussing.

not much there other than people guessing.

In http://www.bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm Thom Hogan explains why VR
should be switched off unless you actually need it.

that doesn't address focus speed issues. he's also being misleading.

And another explanation

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/...ns/image-stabi
lization-when-use-it-and-when-turn-it
or http://tinyurl.com/pvvubgh

more fluff.

I think Peter is right (but maybe for the wrong reasons?).

he's wrong.

vr *helps* autofocus speed because with the image stabilized, the focus
points can remain on the same parts of the image.

without stabilization, the subject will be bouncing around, making it
very difficult for autofocus to track and/or lock.


when you start shooting birds in flight, I will consider your answer as
professional, as opposed to argumentative.
i will go with Thom Hogan

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

I think Peter is right (but maybe for the wrong reasons?).

he's wrong.

vr *helps* autofocus speed because with the image stabilized, the focus
points can remain on the same parts of the image.

without stabilization, the subject will be bouncing around, making it
very difficult for autofocus to track and/or lock.

when you start shooting birds in flight, I will consider your answer as
professional, as opposed to argumentative.

logical fallacy.

i will go with Thom Hogan

thom didn't say one way or the other what vr does to autofocus speed.

that means you are being argumentative.

On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 09:44:59 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 08:43:01 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-08-04 14:53:08 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/3/2016 4:56 PM, RichA wrote:
I saw it in a magazine, a convincing win for the Fuji despite the fact
it was a zoom against a prime lens. Nikon's earlier 300mm lenses can
be had for half the price, but are not recommended as they have no VR.
Both Fuji and Nikon run about $2000.00.


If you're shooing birds at high speeds, VR only slows things down. I
find I get better focus tracking without VR.

Has that actually been documented by anybody, other than with your
personal experience?
...or is that some sort of unverified speculation?

VR/OS was on for this shot.
https://db.tt/FChe5Y5t

See https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/33448760 for comments on the
effect of VR on focussing.

From 2009.

In http://www.bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm Thom Hogan explains why VR
should be switched off unless you actually need it.

From 2010.

And another explanation
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/...d-when-turn-it
or http://tinyurl.com/pvvubgh

Don't know when that's from, but things have certainly progressed
since 2010, plus that Hogan character seems like a bit of a flake, at
least on a quick read. I could be wrong about that, though.

In article , Bill W
wrote:


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/...ions/image-sta
bilization-when-use-it-and-when-turn-it
or http://tinyurl.com/pvvubgh

Don't know when that's from, but things have certainly progressed
since 2010, plus that Hogan character seems like a bit of a flake, at
least on a quick read. I could be wrong about that, though.

he's not a flake, but he's often wrong.

On 8/4/2016 6:22 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 09:44:59 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 08:43:01 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-08-04 14:53:08 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/3/2016 4:56 PM, RichA wrote:
I saw it in a magazine, a convincing win for the Fuji despite the fact
it was a zoom against a prime lens. Nikon's earlier 300mm lenses can
be had for half the price, but are not recommended as they have no VR.
Both Fuji and Nikon run about $2000.00.


If you're shooing birds at high speeds, VR only slows things down. I
find I get better focus tracking without VR.

Has that actually been documented by anybody, other than with your
personal experience?
...or is that some sort of unverified speculation?

VR/OS was on for this shot.
https://db.tt/FChe5Y5t

See https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/33448760 for comments on the
effect of VR on focussing.

From 2009.

In http://www.bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm Thom Hogan explains why VR
should be switched off unless you actually need it.

From 2010.

And another explanation
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/...d-when-turn-it
or http://tinyurl.com/pvvubgh

Don't know when that's from, but things have certainly progressed
since 2010, plus that Hogan character seems like a bit of a flake, at
least on a quick read. I could be wrong about that, though.


He is a highly respected source of Nikon information, despite what
nospam says.

--
PeterN

On 8/4/2016 5:44 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 08:43:01 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-08-04 14:53:08 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/3/2016 4:56 PM, RichA wrote:
I saw it in a magazine, a convincing win for the Fuji despite the fact
it was a zoom against a prime lens. Nikon's earlier 300mm lenses can
be had for half the price, but are not recommended as they have no VR.
Both Fuji and Nikon run about $2000.00.


If you're shooing birds at high speeds, VR only slows things down. I
find I get better focus tracking without VR.

Has that actually been documented by anybody, other than with your
personal experience?
...or is that some sort of unverified speculation?

VR/OS was on for this shot.
https://db.tt/FChe5Y5t

See https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/33448760 for comments on the
effect of VR on focussing.

In http://www.bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm Thom Hogan explains why VR
should be switched off unless you actually need it.

And another explanation
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/...d-when-turn-it
or http://tinyurl.com/pvvubgh

I think Peter is right (but maybe for the wrong reasons?).


It's not a matter of being right or wrong. it's a question of which
works for getting the best possible photo under the circumstances.


--
PeterN