If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Fuji's XF 100-400mm zoom beats Nikon's 300mm f/4.0 VR prime.
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. vr and focusing are two independent systems, however, vr actually *helps* focus tracking because the target is stabilized and not moving all over the place. Should be true since the lense, at least Nikons have their own processor: http://www.nikon.com/about/technolog...vr_e/index.htm The autofocus is processed in the camera: http://www.nikon.com/about/technolog.../caf/index.htm Nevertheless there is a short delay after pushing the shutter release fully down while the VR set centres and commences it's new movement. so what? that has nothing to do with focus speed. it's only an initial delay and once stabilized, there aren't any further delays. the autofocus system may also have to rack the lens, so there may be a delay there too. I took Peter to mean a delay between pushing the button and and the camera taking a photograph. I presume he has shutter release set to focus priority. that has nothing to do with autofocus speed. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Fuji's XF 100-400mm zoom beats Nikon's 300mm f/4.0 VR prime.
On Thu, 04 Aug 2016 19:42:09 -0400, 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. vr and focusing are two independent systems, however, vr actually *helps* focus tracking because the target is stabilized and not moving all over the place. Should be true since the lense, at least Nikons have their own processor: http://www.nikon.com/about/technolog...vr_e/index.htm The autofocus is processed in the camera: http://www.nikon.com/about/technolog.../caf/index.htm Nevertheless there is a short delay after pushing the shutter release fully down while the VR set centres and commences it's new movement. so what? that has nothing to do with focus speed. it's only an initial delay and once stabilized, there aren't any further delays. the autofocus system may also have to rack the lens, so there may be a delay there too. I took Peter to mean a delay between pushing the button and and the camera taking a photograph. I presume he has shutter release set to focus priority. that has nothing to do with autofocus speed. Nevertheless that is what I think he meant. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Fuji's XF 100-400mm zoom beats Nikon's 300mm f/4.0 VR prime.
On 8/4/2016 11:43 AM, 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? I first heard that suggestion at a wildlife shooting lecture. The theory is that when shooting at speeds above 1/2000 sec, you may not need VR. VR does slightly slow down the frame rate. Since this made sense to me I did not research the issue, other than to ask a Nikon professional, and he confirmed the concept. So I guess you can call that concept based on anecdotal evidence, until I see documentation. VR/OS was on for this shot. https://db.tt/FChe5Y5t Several -- PeterN |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Fuji's XF 100-400mm zoom beats Nikon's 300mm f/4.0 VR prime.
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Fuji's XF 100-400mm zoom beats Nikon's 300mm f/4.0 VR prime.
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Fuji's XF 100-400mm zoom beats Nikon's 300mm f/4.0 VR prime.
On 8/4/2016 6:07 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 10:53:08 -0400, PeterN wrote: 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, My grandson was shooing birds at high speed the other day. There were a bunch of pigeons on the sidewalk and he ran up and shooed them off. The best way to catch birds is to put salt on their tails. -- PeterN |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Fuji's XF 100-400mm zoom beats Nikon's 300mm f/4.0 VR prime.
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Fuji's XF 100-400mm zoom beats Nikon's 300mm f/4.0 VR prime.
On 8/4/2016 7:28 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens wrote: I haven't been following this thread, but Tim Grey just wrote on the subject of hummingbirds and VR: http://asktimgrey.com/ It's the August 4 "Stabilizing with Fast Shutter" issue in case a later date opens at that link. use the actual link rather than inconvenience the user. http://asktimgrey.com/2016/08/04/stabilization-with-fast-shutter/ What is the virtue of the longer URL? it's a direct link to the article. They both get to the same place. no they don't. And that comment has what to do with VR and high shutter speeds. -- PeterN |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Fuji's XF 100-400mm zoom beats Nikon's 300mm f/4.0 VR prime.
In article , PeterN
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? I first heard that suggestion at a wildlife shooting lecture. The theory is that when shooting at speeds above 1/2000 sec, you may not need VR. that part is true. VR does slightly slow down the frame rate. that part is not. Since this made sense to me I did not research the issue, other than to ask a Nikon professional, and he confirmed the concept. he's wrong. the frame rate is independent of vr. So I guess you can call that concept based on anecdotal evidence, until I see documentation. read the documentation on how vr works. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Fuji's XF 100-400mm zoom beats Nikon's 300mm f/4.0 VR prime.
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Good Nikon 70-300mm (or thereabouts) zoom | BuzzyBee | Digital SLR Cameras | 9 | January 24th 08 05:46 PM |
Nikon/Nikkor AF 70-300mm Zoom lense F1.4-5.6 | Stephen Manaton | Digital Photography | 4 | April 24th 05 10:37 PM |
Tokina 80-400mm Zoom for Nikon | Capt. Rob | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | February 11th 05 01:31 PM |
FS:Tokina 60-300mm F4/5.6SZ-X 630 macro zoom for Nikon AIS $30 shipped | Gzickl | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | April 14th 04 05:45 PM |