built-in SR

[krzkrzkrz]

Greetings,

As all of you know the Pentax K100 (soon to be released) will offer a SR (shake reduction) built-in their model.

At present I am still deciding whether I should get a Nikon D70, Canon Rebel XT 350D, or Pentax K100.

Will the built-in SR in the Pentax K100 prove very useful? Does this mean that it may out-perform the Rebel XT or the D70 because of this feature?

Regards,
Chris

[TenD]

All of these terms refer to the same thing: small gyros designed to stabilize the sensor or the lens. Nikon and Canon have set up their system in the lens, KM(Sony)and now apparently Pentax have theirs set up in the body. Having the set up in the body means every lens will take advantage of this technology. I am sure there is an advantage to having the technology in the lens, I just can't think of it right now(I am a Canon user).
I don't think outperform is the correct term. The SR(IS, VR, AS...)will theoretically allow you to hand hold with a slower shutter speed than is usually required. This may allow you to get a few shots in low light with a stationary subject that you might miss without this technology.

[Jason25]

Greetings,

As all of you know the Pentax K100 (soon to be released) will offer a SR (shake reduction) built-in their model.

At present I am still deciding whether I should get a Nikon D70, Canon Rebel XT 350D, or Pentax K100.

Will the built-in SR in the Pentax K100 prove very useful? Does this mean that it may out-perform the Rebel XT or the D70 because of this feature?

Regards,
Chris
It will prove useful, especially when it comes to the happiness of your bank account :) Lenses with SR (or VR, IS, or whatever you want to call it), cost a lot more.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong on the following:

If I've read (and remember) correctly, lens-based SR will gain you a stop or more than camera-based SR, because the lens-based version can compensate more. The sensor (in camera-based) can only move so much and still be within the image circle, while the lens SR has more room to work with.

[Gopher]

Think of moving the laser or the wall it's beam is pointing to. Which is easier?

The lens based ones are supposed to give you 3 to 4 stops while in-camera is about 1 to 2.

Quite a gain! 4 stops (Nikon's claim for VR2) simulates the steadiness of using 1/250th when you're really at 1/15th. 2 stops is like using 1/60th when you're really at 1/15th.

Still, at 50mm you can usually get a nice shot at 1/60th but almost never (hand held) at 1/15th.

My wish is to have both, so it would auto-disable when an IS lens is mounted but non-IS lenses would get the advantage of the lesser.

For the future ...
I'm waiting until electronics support electronic IS within the sensor (pixel shifting based on light sampling at random pixel groups, not motion sensor based). That would guarentee never more than 1 pixel of camera shake error. I wonder if 1 pixel of camera shake would be visible?

This would allow us to combine a lens mounted IS with the sensor one. That way the the sensor based portion would just be a failsafe. It could also be theoretically unlimited in the stop correction - albiet engineering simplicity would probably limit it to just a few pixels.

All pixels would shift together, so that an object in motion would not be "corrected". Details details. Still Science Fiction unfortunately.

[krzkrzkrz]

If its useful, why haven't the other manufacturers like Canon or Nikon think about having their sensors built-in the camera?

Why is the Pentax K100 coming out with this feature?

Does this mean that Canon will soon release a camera to have a similar feature in the coming days? If so, would it be better to wait?

[TenD]

Canon and Nikon have had the system in their lenses and have for some time. Now that someone refreshed my memory on why the lens system was better I don't see Canon or Nikon changing to the Body format. Like Jason and Gopher said the lens system offers more A/S control, why would Canon and Nikon want to take a step backwards.

[jeisner]

The lens based ones are supposed to give you 3 to 4 stops while in-camera is about 1 to 2.

SR in the K100D is 3 full stops, confirmed by a number of sources now...

[krzkrzkrz]

SR in the K100D is 3 full stops, confirmed by a number of sources now...

What do you mean by "full stops"?

Gopher mentioned that the lens based SR will give you 3-4 stops.

If you have in-camera SR and lens based SR does this mean 3+3=6 stops?

[jeisner]

What do you mean by "full stops"?

I just mean not 2.5 rounded up to 3 ;-)

Gopher mentioned that the lens based SR will give you 3-4 stops.

The K100D is camera based..

If you have in-camera SR and lens based SR does this mean 3+3=6 stops?

Would be an interesting test but no such system exists..

[coldrain]

What do you mean by "full stops"?

Gopher mentioned that the lens based SR will give you 3-4 stops.

If you have in-camera SR and lens based SR does this mean 3+3=6 stops?
No, you can not have two systems. They do not work from what they see, but what movement is registered. So, they both would try to correct for the original movement, and the result would be that both systems would do their own thing with the image, messing it up totally again.

[krzkrzkrz]

No, you can not have two systems.

So its either in-camera SR or lens bases SR. You cannot have both. Is this correct?

--------------------------------------------------

Also, I dont really understand what the terminology "full-stops" mean. Can someone elaborate?

The more "full-stops" the better the camera is in SR?

[krzkrzkrz]

Additionally,

Can the lense based SR become better in time?

Thats to say. Today, I have a lense bases SR with 3 full-stops. Next 2 years they come out with a better lense that has 5 full-stops. Is this valid to say?

Wouldn't this be better than having in-camera SR then? Because the in-camera SR may not be upgraded? Unless one decides to open the camera up and spend for additional expenses to upgrade the SR (given that this is possible).

[coldrain]

At times it seems that you just ask questions to ask questions. Image stabilization is not needed, but it can be handy. Especially with tele photos, when a little movement of the camera results in a lot of movement image wise. With shorter focal lengths it is a lot less handy, unless you are photographing a static subject. IS will allow longer exposures without camera shake showing up, but longer will show subject movement, making the moving subject blurry.

So.. do not put too much importance on it, and just choose the camera system that you think you will be most happy with into the future. You will upgrade your camera body in time, but your lens system is there to stay. So... pick the camera and lens system that suits you best.

[TenD]

You are getting hooked on a numbers game, are you an accountant by chance?
These numbers are just that, numbers, they really don't mean anything except as a guide. It's not a hard fast number like megapixels(although the differences here aren't hard and fast either), the user has a lot of influence whether a system like this will provide 1 stop or 3 stops of latitude. I know I can hand hold a 200mm with no IS down to about 1/60 and still get a reasonably sharp photo. Someone else might have trouble below 1/100 with IS. But the truth is I can support my lens on a fixed surface(tripod, beanbag, rock)and shoot with as slow of a shutter speed as I want and get a sharp photo. IS is only helpful handheld with stationary subject. Many say they can't live without it, I have only one lens with it, and I am not particularly worried about getting another lens with it. If it was in my body I guess I might use it more, but I have no problem finding something to support my rig on and take the picture if I don't have my tripod along.
Image stabilization has been improved and will probably be improved again in the future. I also believe that it's probably pretty close to it's limits now and any improvement will be incremental at best. You are worrying about something that:
1)Didn't exist 11 years ago, how did all of the greats take their photos?
2)Isn't at all needed if you use a tripod, bean bag, rock, etc. to support your camera.
3)Isn't really all that effective on shorter lens lengths
4)Isn't really effective on moving subjects
Heres something to ponder: Canon introduced an eye controlled focus system in its film SLRs, do you think they may introduce this in their DSLRs? Just one more thing to wait for...when you could buy something and start taking pictures. I know you are trying to get the "best", but there are a series of compromises, YOU have to decide which features are best for you and buy the camera that provides most of them.

[Gopher]

Well now, 25 years ago they didn't have USM much less AF and they got good photos. I believe it's an apt analogy.

IS is here to stay and will vastly improve a photo-system's usability and ease of getting good photos, just like AF.

I was not aware Pentax got 3-stop IS, not bad!

As stated though, it's a convenience/usability issue. There's so much else to consider.

For lens based IS, it permits IS on Full Framed cameras and does seem like it would have more potential. Obviously, motion cancelation should only be done once.

Digital cameras tend to go obsolete quicker so I'd rather have it in-camera as far as replacement concerns - lens collections are often several thousand dollars.

Also; your question seemed retorical but all questions are valid. Coldrain's attack seemed inappropriate for the spirit of this board. Coldrain, if you cannot answer respectfully, then why answer at all?