2nd try

On 8/4/2014 5:36 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Sunday, 3 August 2014 18:39:34 UTC+1, nospam wrote:


Again, since we're discussing a particular result with these two images, we
know that camera shake could have been avoided.

you don't know that.

Using a faster shutter speed tends to reduce camera shake and even subject movement, I though that was pretty basic stuff.



you weren't with him when he shot it nor do you know if he has a
degenerative disease affecting his motor skills,

Even if such a degenerative disease was the cause a faster shutter speed would have reduced 'shake' whereas if this were a degenerative disease of the mind it could be responsible for certain comments that have been made ;-P

although his inability
to type properly does suggest that possibility.

One usually finds it a person mental perception that is the probelm.
Some might even have a go at steven hawkins if he made a few typo's if they thought it would score them some points in an arguement.


if someone is shooting from an unsteady platform, such as a boat or
moving vehicle, there can be camera shake issues at any shutter
speed.


Peter wasn't shooting from a boat as far as we know.

it's an example.

any idesa what would be the result if he were traveling close to the speed of light....there's something to think about.



you said there is no reason whatsoever that an image should not be
needle sharp.

Needles aren't realy that sharp anyway if you look really close.



since they weren't, there obviously is a reason.

Sound like something sherlock Holmes would say, while he came up with a solution.



he's shaky in more ways than one, notably his arguments.

If the observer is also shaky you get a similar effect.


Also 1/60 and VR only helps makes the lens stable, it doesn't make the
subject move less. They don't look to be jumping around in the pictures,
but they may not have been perfectly still either. 1/200 would have been
much preferred.



to stop subject motion it would but not camera shake, which is covered
by stabilization.

A faster shutter speed would reduce the visual signs of camera shake.
It would NOT stop the camera shaking though, so in that ONE respect you're correct.


Camera shake is not an issue when using flash as a primary lighting source.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN wrote:

Sandman:
If you use VR, you can lower the shutter speed somewhat if needed,
but in this case it wasn't. Set your aperture to f4 if you fear
that not enough of the subject will be in focus, and your shutter
speed to 1/200 at 200mm.

As Ken Rockwell said: "If you can't get sharp photos with this
lens, you are a sad excuse for a photographer."

When I get a chance I am going to see if there is a hardware issue.
Very few take Ken Rockwell literally.

Very true, but sometimes he gets some things right. Probably by accident

Sandman:
His words, not mine. This is an *awesome* lens and there is no
reason what so ever that these picture shouldn't be needle sharp.

Footnote: The VR II of the 70-200 claims four stops of
improvement, but that's in ideal conditions, and I'm assuming here
that Peter may be a bit shakey to begin with, so I stand by the
shutter speed of 1/focal length in spite of the VR II.

A little more than I used to be. VR should not be the issue because
I used strobe with this set. I did not with the original, and
someone was kind enough to point out that the blur looked ike motion
blur. I suspect the real issue was shooting through a greenish glass
window, and light scatter caused by small scratches in the glass.

Ah, there's your problem then. No flashes when shooting through glass.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , PeterN wrote:

His words, not mine. This is an *awesome* lens and
there is no reason what so ever that these picture shouldn't
be needle sharp.

Eric Stevens:
I have the f/2.8 VR and from my experience,
tests and what have read, it is sharper at the shorter focal
length. I've never tried it with a teleconverter.

nospam:
it's pretty good but any teleconverter will have an impact on
quality.

Sandman:
There is a place for a TC, but Peter's images rarely is that.
Since he is shooting with a D800, there is no reason to go from
200mm to 220mm using a TC.

The 1.7 goes from 200 to 340

Yes, but one of the images was shot at 220mm, so the TC was wholly
unneccessary.

--
Sandman[.net]

On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 08:34:46 -0400, PeterN wrote:

On 8/3/2014 7:28 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
rOn Sun, 03 Aug 2014 17:32:54 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

That's from the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II. It's not clear from
PeterN's EXIF whether his f/2.8 VR or VR II.

Both are equally sharp, the VR II just has better image stabilization.

I've never thought to look at DxO before. The results are interesting.
http://tinyurl.com/mh2cro2
The newer lens is slightly sharper and better in both other respects
as well, but the differences are so small that most people would be
hard pressed to notice them. You would get bigger variations from
processing.

that's what i said originally.

I wasn't disagreeing with you. It's just that Sandman said:

"Both are equally sharp, the VR II just has better image
stabilization."

I thought there was to it than that and DxO confirmed that there is,
although not much.


The major difference is the edges are softer on a full frame with the
original.

Yes - providing you mean the original 70-200 f/2.8 VR and not just the
original 70-200 f/2.8
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

"Both are equally sharp, the VR II just has better image
stabilization."

I thought there was to it than that and DxO confirmed that there is,
although not much.

The major difference is the edges are softer on a full frame with the
original.

Yes - providing you mean the original 70-200 f/2.8 VR and not just the
original 70-200 f/2.8

both versions of the 70-200 f/2.8 have vr.

you may be thinking of the 80-200 f/2.8 which does not have vr, and
there are four versions of it.

On 2014-08-06 02:00:57 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 08:34:46 -0400, PeterN wrote:

On 8/3/2014 7:28 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
rOn Sun, 03 Aug 2014 17:32:54 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

That's from the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II. It's not clear from
PeterN's EXIF whether his f/2.8 VR or VR II.

Both are equally sharp, the VR II just has better image stabilization.

I've never thought to look at DxO before. The results are interesting.
http://tinyurl.com/mh2cro2
The newer lens is slightly sharper and better in both other respects
as well, but the differences are so small that most people would be
hard pressed to notice them. You would get bigger variations from
processing.

that's what i said originally.

I wasn't disagreeing with you. It's just that Sandman said:

"Both are equally sharp, the VR II just has better image
stabilization."

I thought there was to it than that and DxO confirmed that there is,
although not much.


The major difference is the edges are softer on a full frame with the
original.

Yes - providing you mean the original 70-200 f/2.8 VR and not just the
original 70-200 f/2.8

That was the 80-200mm f/2.8.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 22:08:25 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

"Both are equally sharp, the VR II just has better image
stabilization."

I thought there was to it than that and DxO confirmed that there is,
although not much.

The major difference is the edges are softer on a full frame with the
original.

Yes - providing you mean the original 70-200 f/2.8 VR and not just the
original 70-200 f/2.8

both versions of the 70-200 f/2.8 have vr.

you may be thinking of the 80-200 f/2.8 which does not have vr, and
there are four versions of it.

What about this one - does it have VR?
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/ima..._1779-1200.jpg

There are many other designs before the first VR.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

"Both are equally sharp, the VR II just has better image
stabilization."

I thought there was to it than that and DxO confirmed that there is,
although not much.

The major difference is the edges are softer on a full frame with the
original.

Yes - providing you mean the original 70-200 f/2.8 VR and not just the
original 70-200 f/2.8

both versions of the 70-200 f/2.8 have vr.

you may be thinking of the 80-200 f/2.8 which does not have vr, and
there are four versions of it.

What about this one - does it have VR?
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/ima..._1779-1200.jpg

stop linking to liars.

and no, it doesn't.

*none* of the 80-200 lenses have vr of any kind, especially a manual
focus ai lens that predates vr by a decade or so.

There are many other designs before the first VR.

not for the 70-200 there aren't. *all* versions of the 70-200 have vr.

there are 4 versions of the 80-200 (and an earlier manual focus version
for 5), none of which have vr. one had afs though.

it's a different lens. you can tell it's different because 80 != 70.

On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 22:08:25 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

"Both are equally sharp, the VR II just has better image
stabilization."

I thought there was to it than that and DxO confirmed that there is,
although not much.

The major difference is the edges are softer on a full frame with the
original.

Yes - providing you mean the original 70-200 f/2.8 VR and not just the
original 70-200 f/2.8

both versions of the 70-200 f/2.8 have vr.

you may be thinking of the 80-200 f/2.8 which does not have vr, and
there are four versions of it.

Yes, you are right. Please ignore my immediately previous post. I was
confusing the history of the 80-200 with that of the 70-200.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2014-08-06 04:43:39 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 22:08:25 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

"Both are equally sharp, the VR II just has better image
stabilization."

I thought there was to it than that and DxO confirmed that there is,
although not much.

The major difference is the edges are softer on a full frame with the
original.

Yes - providing you mean the original 70-200 f/2.8 VR and not just the
original 70-200 f/2.8

both versions of the 70-200 f/2.8 have vr.

you may be thinking of the 80-200 f/2.8 which does not have vr, and
there are four versions of it.

What about this one - does it have VR?
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/ima..._1779-1200.jpg

There are many other designs before the first VR.

This time *nospam* is correct and you have been a tad careless with
your argument. Check your statement above where you refer to the
“original 70-200 f/2.8. Well the original Nikkor 70-200mm f/3.8 was a
VR lens. Nikon never produced a non-stabilized version.

What you have shown above is the original 80-200mm f/2.8, not a 70-200
f.2.8, and it certainly doesn't have VR. Even the latest version the
80-200mm f/2.8D ED doesn't have any VR & it is not delivered with a
lens shade, that is a $45 accessory.
,http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/AF-Zoom-Nikkor-80-200mm-f%252F2.8D-ED.html

There

have been only 2 versions of the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 one with VR and
the latest with VRII
Tamron had a non-stabilized 70-200mm f/2.8.

--
Regards,

Savageduck