NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: Nick Scavone on November 26, 2016, 02:07:08
-
I've placed my order for a D500 (early Christmas gift for myself), and downloaded the manual. Page 326 states:
"The lenses listed below are not recommended for long exposures or photographs taken at high ISO sensitivities, as due to the design of the vibration reduction (VR) control system the resulting photos may be marred by fog. We recommend turning vibration reduction off when using other VR lenses."
Lenses listed include many modern lenses including • AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70–200mm f/2.8G IF-ED • AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70–300mm f/4.5–5.6G IF-ED • AF-S VR Nikkor 200mm f/2G IF-ED • AF-S VR Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G IF-ED • AF-S NIKKOR 16–35mm f/4G ED VR • AF-S NIKKOR 24–120mm f/4G ED VR • AF-S NIKKOR 28–300mm f/3.5–5.6G ED VR • AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8G ED VR • AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4G ED VR
Apparently there are similar compatibility issues with the D5 (similar language in that manual). I planned to use the camera with my 70-200 g and my 400 2.8 g for sports in low light. The manual suggests that the lenses should be avoided altogether (not just turn off VR). Last sentence indicates VR should be turned off using OTHER vr lenses.
Does anyone have any experience with the d500 and these lenses at high ISOs? Any thought on how problematic this might be?
Thanks.
Nick
-
Interesting Nick, I did not read that part of the manual but bought the D500 primarily for birds and Sport. I do not shoot long exposures. The 70-200 f2.8vr II was the third lens I put on my new D500 . I was super happy that the lens does not appear to need any fine tuning but was shooting a Banana Plant with lots of light ( too much actually) . My 300 2.8 vr I does appear to need some fine tune. I have not used vr on either yet. I plan to use the 300 2.8 on the D500 and the 70-200 0n the D3S for Soccer. I roam the sidelines with the two camera set up.
It will be interesting to see what others have to say. There are many here who have been shooting the D500 much longer than I have (I've had it for about a week) and are much more proficient/experienced than I am.
Cheers,
Tom
-
I use the D500 since May but did not use any of these lenses.
Only VR I own is the 300PF
-
The normal over-cautious attitude from Nikon's side, presumably.
Anyway, using VR on lenses for long exposures is counter-indicated if the lens is tripod-mounted, so perhaps this issue is more theoretical than of practical importance. Haven't seen any "fog" with my D500 so far. But this doesn't entail it is non-existing.
-
Apparently the VR system in all the listed lenses are of the earlier design. I wonder why the problem emerges at higher ISO settings?
-
No idea. However, this assertion is a testable hypothesis. Away from home now and no VR lenses with me, so I'll conduct experiments early next week.
-
Thanks all. Surprising to see so many recent lenses on the list (and I only cited some of them from the manual). Yes it is the high ISO shooting I am concerned about. Even with VR off Nikon says the lenses should not be used. No indication of what Nikon means when they say "high ISO".
Thom Hogan's explanation in his Complete Guide to the D500 is as follows: "some Nikon VR lenses use a low-power LED internally to help determine the position of the VR elements. With cameras like the D500, it is now possible to shoot in ways— e.g. extremely high ISO values—where that LED will produce a little bit of visible “fogging” that can be picked up by the image sensor."
Strange that the LED would be on when VR is off.
In any case thanks much. Curious to see if anyone can see an issue in real world shooting.
Nick
-
Nick, sorry to lengthen the thread.
I interpreted the word "fog" as the unevenness of the image quality within a frame, which is what I read in the Japanese manual. But Thom Hogan's explanation makes good sense to me. So, the latest VR system might use something like Hall effect devices instead of the LED-photodiode combo?
-
Nikon manuals are often not written with a great degree of technical precision (whoever wrote or translated it was not an engineer who fully understood the problem or did not notice the result is ambiguous).
The subsection concerns long exposures and high ISO settings, they do not say that these VR lenses should not be used at short exposures or low to medium ISO. This could arise when there is extremely little light from the subject and an artifact which previous cameras were not sensitive enough to see could now be seen as "fog". I would guess that the last sentence "We recommend turning VR off when using other lenses." to be an error. If they had written either "We recommend turning VR off when using the lenses listed below for long exposures and/or high sensitivities." or "We recommend turning VR off when using any VR lens for long exposures and/or high ISO settings." depending on whether all VR lenses cause this effect to some degree, then it would be more clear what they meant.
It should be easy enough to test the effect though it doesn't make sense to use VR for long exposures in any case. If the listed VR lenses cause fogging even when VR is off, then it seems like it could be annoying problem.
I would think it is straightforward enough to test. Set ISO to (say) 1 million, go to a dark room with all lights off. Test pics with listed and unlisted VR lenses with VR on and off, and see if there is visible fogging in some but not all of the images.
-
Consider it a part of the charm when reading the Nikon manuals ;)
-
Perhaps the main point is that VR adds to battery drain and they advised against using the feature in combination with long exposures. The rest could just be something lost in translation.
-
Consider it a part of the charm when reading the Nikon manuals ;)
I've noticed errors in Nikon manuals and technical leaflets over the years. I think I've noticed errors in leaflets with things like focus screens from the late '70s and on. The AF 70-180/4.5-5.6D ED Micro-Nikkor has strange exposure compensations information. At the time I email Bjørn at his Nærfoto Bjørn Rørslett site and he explained the design implications of the F4 mirror and metering at less than f/5.6. It's been a long time. Neither the F5 nor the F3 had the problem.
Accuracy in manuals and technical leaflets hasn't been Nikon's strong point for decades. I've wondered about translation which I doubt is done by people with technical knowledge of the product.
Dave Hartman
-
I've translated user manuals of various musical instruments and have found some errors.
In the past, someone pointed out that the description of 63/3.5 being color-corrected in 350-700nm range in one edition of EL-Nikkor brochure was actually a typo, and that caused the rumor that the lens could be used for UV.
When I saw the Japanese word translated as "fog" in the D500 manual, I thought of that "partial blur" in a image frame which was reported in the thread for the early review of 80-400 VR zoom by Bjørn. But if the LED is the culprit of the "fog" mentioned in the English manual, they should have said "slight color cast" or something like that.
-
I find it hard to believe that the manual could be that inaccurate -- seems fairly unambiguous to me. Perhaps I am naive (and I hope I am wrong). Thanks for the comments from all.
Nick
-
A classical "Google translate" :) Have used D500 with three VR lenses and haven't noticed "fogging". That doesn't indicate that blurring might occur. I think the VR function is badly implemented in Nikon cameras. The camera should be able to override the VR of the lens and turn it on or off at a set threshold. Have gotten more than a few pictures destroyed when taking the camera on and off the tripod or changing from slow shutter speed to fast shutter speed.
-
Too many users trend to forget that VR can only impact the quality adversely when shutter speeds get fast enough.
My advice is think of VR as one *ought* to consider AF: namely, engage the feature when it is positively required, switch off all the time otherwise.
-
I agree, but still I keep forgetting to turn it off after using it. Probably progressing dementia :)
-
Not only that, the stabilization of the viewfinder image can be very helpful when placing focus points on a critical small spot. However I tend to then keep the VR on the 300 PF in sports mode unless I have to use long hand held shutter speeds on stationary objects - that is a bit more forgiving with respect to adverse background effects and problems with framing jumping and messing up composition just before the exposure. It is pretty forgiving up to 1/1000 sec, above that I try to turn it off.
-
The "fog", as they put it, is shown in the picture attached which is a 150 second exposure using the 70-200mm VR-I lens mounted on the D700 with the lens cap on (to clearly show the problem). ISO was set to 6400, f/2.8, and VR turned on. This problem found me during a long exposure several years ago. It is not specific to the D5/D500 as far as long exposures go though with newer cameras high ISO sensitivity what it is these days, it is no wonder why they warn against using these lenses.
I never knew why this happened but Thom Hogans explanation makes sense.
I'd suggest some other folks here run the same test on some of the other lenses listed at various exposure lengths and ISO settings to find out when exactly the problem arises on their cameras.
-
Was "Long exposure NR" set On or Off? Does long exposure noise reduction make a difference?
---
Øivind,
VR On-Off-Auto? Might be a useful feature to add to VR lenses?
Dave
Lower half edited for clarification.
-
VR on, there is no 'Auto' on the 70-200mm VR-I. Just On/Off and Normal/Active.
I recall figuring out a way to make the red mark not appear but don't remember which combination of settings did it, this was 8 or 9 years ago I did the testing.
-
If I remember correctly, the long exposure noise will commonly appear at the top or the bottom of the image frame. So, the red "fog" in the middle area of the frame would not be caused by the sensor heating.
-
Light leakage through the viewfinder comes to mind.
-
My thinking was quite flawed. If the red mark were from VR, long exposure noise reduction would not help as the shutter would be closed during the blank exposure so no light would reach the shutter from VR in the lens.
Dave
-
If I remember correctly, the long exposure noise will commonly appear at the top or the bottom of the image frame. So, the red "fog" in the middle area of the frame would not be caused by the sensor heating.
Yes, the long exposure/sensor heat noise was pink and in the corners on the CCD cameras I owned (D70/D200).
Light leakage through the viewfinder comes to mind.
New test image from today uploaded, this time with the D800. Lens cap on & viewfinder shutter closed.
70-200mm VR-I, 291 seconds, ISO 6400, F/2.8, VR on, AF on.
Identical pattern, more or less. Same test with the 24-70mm results in a black image.
The source of the red fog is the 70-200mm lens itself, not a light leak or sensor heating noise.
Seems pretty evident this is why Nikon warns against using the lens for long exposures & high ISO.
I contacted Nikon about the issue back in 2008 or so and sent them my test image so they could see the issue clearly.
They basically told me to stop taking pictures with my lens cap on.
-
They basically told me to stop taking pictures with my lens cap on.
Good point! :D :P ;)
Now I'm going to try a few long, high ISO exposures with the lens cap on. :)
Dave
-
Tested strong light into the lens distance window, no flare.
-
If you turn VR OFF, does the effect disappear? Thanks.
-
If you turn VR OFF, does the effect disappear? Thanks.
Tried that and no, the effect was there with VR On as well as Off.
-
Charlie,
"They basically told me to stop taking pictures with my lens cap on." Very very funny.
So how high an ISO can be used without this effect, if in fact this is what Nikon is referring to?
Nick
-
So if 300s exposure at ISO 6400 causes a clear artifact, at ISO 51200 you'd need about 30 seconds for a similar effect, I guess. Shorter exposures or lower ISO, less artifact.
-
Charlie,
"They basically told me to stop taking pictures with my lens cap on." Very very funny.
So how high an ISO can be used without this effect, if in fact this is what Nikon is referring to?
Nick
Funny indeed. While they make a good argument I did discover this on actual picture. A long exposure night time image.
I use the D700 & D800 so I 'm not sure when this might appear with high ISO as I don't really go above 3200. Out in the real world with the lens cap off its never been a problem for me besides very long exposures, which I don't do to often.
That said I set the lens to f/2.8 & the D800 to ISO H2.0 which is roughly 25600 equivalent and saw the first faint signs of "the red fog" at a 4 second exposure so I would guess it starts to appear somewhere around the following settings or some other variation of these exposures:
f/2.8 ISO 25600 @ 4"
f/2.8 ISO 51200 @ 2"
f/2.8 ISO 102400 @ 1"
And so on.
If this is in fact the fog they speak of it should be easy enough to test, which I encourage someone else to do and share the results.
-
That excerpt from the manual makes absolutely no sense. Why in the world would Nikon tell you NOT to use these lenses on any camera?
Also I cannot find this in my D500 (English) User's Manual???
EDIT: I did find the warning on page 324 of my printed manual.
FWIW, I have used both the following lenses (and 3 other Nikon VR zooms) on my D500 with VR turned on and have seen no "fog". I do follow the usual precautions about not using VR on pod and understanding that at certain speeds VR is more of a hindrance than a help.
AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70–300mm f/4.5–5.6G IF-ED
AF-S NIKKOR 16–35mm f/4G ED VR
-
My D500 arrives Wednesday. I will put it to the test at a variety of high ISOs with VR off, using my 70-200 2.8 g (among the many other banned "fog" inducing VR lenses). We shall see what comes of it. I'll keep you all posted.
Nick
-
I did one test: I tried an AF-S 105/2.8G ED Micro-Nikkor on a D800. The lens was set to f/2.8 and the exposure was 5 minutes at ISO 6400 with VR on. I saw nothing. Later when I have time I'll try a 30 and 60 minute exposures with VR off.
I'll have to download a D500 manual and see if this lens is on the list.
Dave
-
Here is the complete list from the D500 manual.
AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 24–120mm f/3.5–5.6G IF-ED • AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70–200mm f/2.8G IF-ED • AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70–300mm f/4.5–5.6G IF-ED • AF-S VR Nikkor 200mm f/2G IF-ED • AF-S VR Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G IF-ED • AF-S NIKKOR 16–35mm f/4G ED VR • AF-S NIKKOR 24–120mm f/4G ED VR • AF-S NIKKOR 28–300mm f/3.5–5.6G ED VR • AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8G ED VR • AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4G ED VR • AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18–200mm f/3.5–5.6G IF-ED • AF-S DX NIKKOR 16–85mm f/3.5–5.6G ED VR • AF-S DX NIKKOR 18–200mm f/3.5–5.6G ED VR II • AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 85mm f/3.5G ED VR • AF-S DX NIKKOR 55–300mm f/4.5–5.6G ED VR
-
I have in general few VR lenses, but could tick off a few on that list. Will experiment when I return home after the weekend.
My AFS 105/1.4E, with me on my trip, certainly did not provoke anything untoward, but then it is not VR (fortunately).
-
For what its worth now when I am testing the issue shows up with VR On and it is not there when VR is Off. Not sure why earlier it was always there whether VR was set to On or Off.
-
I have tested my D500 with AFS 28-300/3.5-6 Nikkor and AFS 200/2 Nikkor VR 1. None of these show the issue within the range of conditions available for testing. My lens arsenal isn't exactly filled to the brim with VR lenses as I deliberately tried to avoid them ...
I found the idea of a "low-powered LED to inform the system of the position of the VR elements" to be pretty far-fetched. Much easier to think of an internal circuit on the motherboard that is concerned with the VR control and management, and generating heat or electronic noise under a set of conditions (high signal amplification==high ISO, long exposure).
-
If you can make the artifact happen, it should be easy to test whether it is light from a photodiode that is causing the problem. Just insert a black piece of paper to cover the lens rear element and see if the effect disappears. If it does not, then it is probably electromagnetic interference.
Please do not hold me responsible if you do this test and end up with pieces of paper in the mirror chamber ;)
-
Can't reproduce with the 200f2
Don't have any of the others.
-
Tried D500 with the 300PF. No issue. Even violently shaking the rig during the exposure to ensure VR continuously engaged did not produce any flare? Putting a strong torch light straight into the lens distance window likewise did not result in anything unusual.
I'm feeling like I'm chasing ghosts at this stage of the affair.
-
Dito with the new 70-200 and 400
Nada...
-
Thanks for the tests all. Strange that Nikon would make such a big deal of the issue. Perhaps it only arises at max ISOs, or perhaps it is an error in translation. My d500 arrives Wednesday. Hope my results mirror yours. Looking forward to spending time with this camera.
Cheers,
Nick
-
I ran the D500 with ISO up to H4, which is approx. 800K ISO. No flare in these tests.
-
It is not Nikon that is making a big deal out of this IMHO,,,
-
If you can make the artifact happen, it should be easy to test whether it is light from a photodiode that is causing the problem. Just insert a black piece of paper to cover the lens rear element and see if the effect disappears. If it does not, then it is probably electromagnetic interference.
Please do not hold me responsible if you do this test and end up with pieces of paper in the mirror chamber ;)
Good idea, I tried this by putting a micro fibre lens cleaning cloth in the deep chamber at the back of my 70-200mm, the pattern appeared regardless if there the light path was blocked or not.
This proves the theory of a photodiode emanating from inside the lens to be far-fetched indeed.
-
Ups, I should have said a light-emitting diode (LED) would be the component that emits light, a photodiode is a detector that converts light into current. ;-)
If it is not due to light, then EM interference is a possible explanation for the artifact.
-
...
This proves the theory of a photodiode emanating from inside the lens to be far-fetched indeed.
Good to know. I consider Nikon to be a company with rational and knowledgeable people .... Of course , with the bewildering complexity of today's electronic lenses and cameras, one apparently cannot entirely guard against interactions and side effects. This more so as true field testing is on the wane for new models in the quest to get the newest and latest products pushed to the market as quickly as possible.
-
Do sensor heat patterns ever appear in the center of the frame? I tested my D2H and found areas alone the bottom edge of the frame at each corner and in the center. All starting at the extreme lower edge. Then there was general noise, quite heavy.
I never tested another camera but always use Long Exposure NR.
Dave
-
Noise patterns from EM (or heat) tend to be off-centre. At least that is my general experience with digital cameras up till now.
-
Dave that's probably
read dark noise which looks worse as exposure length increases and the sensor heats up? It is kind of blotchy.
Added: difficult to separate out the dark noise from the high ISO noise in practice.
Added: Like Bjørn, usually I've seen this heat thing worse on the edges. Test this with viewfinder port closed to keep from contaminating center of frame during a long test exposure.