Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 21, 2006, 4:00 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 226
Default

I really liked the Samsung (rebadged DL2) but having had stabilised cameras in the past, i was conscious that some of my images were suffering fromminute amounts of shake but enough to be telling in the image.

i decided to go the K100D route. I thought it would be much the same camera, except with the benefit of S.R.

What i wasn't expecting was the very noticable improvement in auto focus speed.

I kept my samsung 55-200 lens and together with the K100D kit lens, i am am getting some really nice sharps pictures, thanks to S.R.

I used to have a Nikon and the 70 - 200 VR was on my wish list - I would accept that this lens is still superior to my 55-200, however with S.R. on my camera, the gap between the two lenses is much closer.
norm smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 21, 2006, 4:11 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Black Knight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Oxford, CT
Posts: 1,309
Default

Hi Norm

I currently have the DS, Which I Love. I also am Noticing that i am Much More Shaky than i Would like. So I am waiting a Few more months and Seriously Considering The K10D as a replacement.

Good luck with the New Samsung

BK/Phil


Black Knight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2006, 5:23 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

Norm - I did the same thing. I had the DS and wanted a longer zoom, but knew that I wasn't steady enough for one. Playing with the K100D at night one night gave me the confidence to get one and I love it. It's helped quite a bit with other pictures, too.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2006, 5:36 PM   #4
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

norm,
examples?????

roy
  Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2006, 5:13 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Catbells's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 874
Default

I kinda think that's it's wrong to rely too much on 'in camera' shake reduction - don't get me wrong, I'm not against it as it has obvious advantages.

During the very limited time that I owned a Nikon 8000 I found it useful when forced to use slow shutter speeds for long telephoto shots but that's my point, shouldn't itbe used when lighting conditions fail & not as an every day thing.
Catbells is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2006, 11:16 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 226
Default

why would I ever want to switch it off (other than panning and tripod use).

I'm certainly not a big fan of carrying a tripod around - though I keep one in the car boot just in case I need long exposures.
norm smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2006, 9:08 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
nadnerb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bath, UK
Posts: 319
Default

Because it uses more battery and it can effect image quality.
Both are debatable issues though.
nadnerb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2006, 11:11 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

SR isn't the end-all and it does have its limits as to how much it can help. However, I posted two moon shots recently, both taken on a tripod, both with the same lens,but on different nights. One had SR on, one did not. I couldn't tell much difference between the two (you can see them here on the latest moon thread).

As far as the batteries - yes, it does use up the batteries faster, but that's a relative thing. I put my reserve batteries in something like Monday (they had been charged a couple of weeks ago), took a few pictures several times this week, then a whole bunch on Friday (the autumn pictures), some more today (more autumn pictures, along with some ducks) and they are still going strong. I do change batteries more often, but it's not THAT big of a difference.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2006, 8:16 PM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 78
Default

For some actual SR on vs SR off comparison photos, have a look at
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=107000&forum_id=80&jump_ to=627443



Mike


MikeAusA200 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 25, 2006, 3:00 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 226
Default

I know that with my walk around lens (ie tripod stays in the car - hoorah), at my local bird sanctuary, eyes and feathers are sharper / crisper with SR than on my previous cam (without SR)
norm smith is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:04 AM.