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 Mar 22, 2010, 2:57 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Eetu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jyväskylä, Finland
Posts: 2,212
Default

Hi Tachikoma,

No, I don't see the picture. Sorry, but thanks for your words. Wow, 1/15 of second. Amazing. I thought that anything below 1/30 was taking chances. Thanks. Ned
Eetu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2010, 3:01 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

One of the problems you have with stabilization is that it can't really be quantified, and it depends on the individual shooter as to how useful it is. The one main advantage I can see to in-lens stabilization systems is that it stabilizes the image in the viewfinder. This isn't at all important with a wider lens as you don't notice much camera shake when lining up your subject. However, using a 300mm lens accentuates camera shake, and it can be hard to line up a relatively small subject with the lens bouncing around some (I know, I once tried to shoot a brush fire that was on a hillside overlooking the freeway we were driving on. The flames were small and I had a hard time keeping them in my viewfinder!). In-camera stabilization made it possible for me to capture the picture without obvious shake. In-lens stabilization appears in the viewfinder - I could have lined up the flames easier, without snapping a couple of frames to make sure I managed one with the flames in frame.

I use stabilization more with wider lenses and low light, and I can't afford the more expensive stabilized lenses so I'm happy with the in-camera stabilization.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2010, 4:06 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Eetu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jyväskylä, Finland
Posts: 2,212
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtngal View Post
I use stabilization more with wider lenses and low light, and I can't afford the more expensive stabilized lenses so I'm happy with the in-camera stabilization.
Does this mean that one could have stabilization "in the camera" and also have "stabilization in a lens"???
Eetu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2010, 4:36 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: East Central Vermont
Posts: 1,890
Default

Ned, if you happen to have have a stabilized lens on a camera body with sensor-based stabilization, you definitely do NOT want to use both! They will cancel each other out and create a blurry image. Sensor-based stabilization moves the sensor in order to counteract hand shake. But if the image hitting the sensor is already stabilized by the lens, then the sensor's motion will cause blurriness. I don't know if I explained it very well, but if you have both and you're hand holding the camera, you must turn one off.

Also, Mtngal is correct, and I should have mentioned it in my earlier reply. Lens based stabilization has the advantage of stabilizing the image in the viewfinder, which makes it easier to compose a shot.

Last edited by mtnman; Mar 22, 2010 at 6:20 PM.
mtnman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2010, 9:41 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

Sigma has released several of their stabilized lenses in Pentax mount and left the stabilization on it (rather than making another version of the lens without it). As mtnman pointed out, you need to turn one or the other off when using them (there's a switch on the lens to turn off/on the anti-shake).
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 23, 2010, 12:34 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Eetu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jyväskylä, Finland
Posts: 2,212
Default

All of this is good to know... sounds like a just quick simple line, but I just appreciate the kind help and feedback, indeed. Thanks all!
Eetu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 23, 2010, 6:14 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Tachikoma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Wales
Posts: 1,086
Default

Sorry, thought that might happen, I will upload the image to Imageshack tonight after work for you to see it.

1/15 sounds impressive, but truth me told it took a couple of shots to get it right. The end result was a reasonable image, which was surprising considering the big aperture, high ISO, long shutter speed, etc. I wouldn't have been able to get it without the image stabilisation (or a tripod) so I am happy with it, even though it's not a great shot.

This was on the K10D as well mind, looking forward to trying similar shots with the K-7 (getting my replacement tomorrow) to see how it compares.
Tachikoma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 23, 2010, 7:57 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Eetu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jyväskylä, Finland
Posts: 2,212
Default

Tachikoma, you're getting a K-7??? Wow, PLEASE keep me posted, if you don't mind. Like to know how things go. Thanks. Ned
Eetu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 23, 2010, 8:59 AM   #19
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Keep something in mind also. The statement about not everyone needing ISO 6400 is absolutely true. But so is image stabilization. The kit lenses for Nikon and Canon are stabilized. So are the secondary 'kit' zoom lenses both offer. I happen to have both stabilized and non stabilized lenses. So I'm familiar with using and not using it. IMO, image stabilization in shorter lenses (<200mm) is vastly, vastly overrated. Just like ISO 6400 is vastly overrated. Just like having 15mp is vastly overrated. The problem is: no single camera and no single brand of cameras has the best of everything. So, if you choose one brand and one camera you actually give something up by not choosing another. The real key is: matching the features to your specific requirements. And those requirements aren't always what other people tell you they are. Nikon has the best flash system. Doesn't mean Canon is bad. Canon has the best priced pro-grade telephoto glass but it doesn't mean Sony is bad. Pentax has in body IS but lots of Canon and Nikon consumer lenses have it as well at comparable prices. The K-x has better high ISO performance than the K-7. And so on and so on.

Just because I use ISO 6400 quite a bit doesn't mean YOU need it. Just because mtngal uses anti-shake with wide angle doesn't mean you need it (even though you'd have it on canon & nikon kit lenses).

So, I second the advice to concentrate on the features which most benefit your photographic needs. And if you don't know what requirements are - ask. You'd be surprised how misleading information can be.

For example - let's say you speak of needing gear for low light shooting. One person might assume shots like the fireworks - hey, image stabilization is a feature that could help. One person might assume indoor family shots - in which case image stabilization is not the right answer - a flash is. Another person might be thinking of gymnastics where flash isn't allowed and neither IS or flash are the right answer - high ISO and wide aperture lenses are as well as a good AF lens and good AF body.

Just my opinion.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 23, 2010, 9:29 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Eetu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jyväskylä, Finland
Posts: 2,212
Default

John, I appreciate your very good comments above! Thank you. I agree that there is no one-and-only perfect camera. You have noted what others have said, such as Kx vs K7 in ISO, etc., etc. I have always been a Pentaxian, but some of the things I see in Canon 550D certainly turn my eye. For example, I would like to have HD in the camera (don't want to get into that debate as some think HD does not belong in camera for still pictures), my wife would benefit, and so would I with Canon 550D HD video. As for my needs, I am in Finland... it's jok'n cold here. "Camera build" is a concern, but then there are a lot of people with every camera under the sun... so what's the deal??? I will primarily take landscape and portraits. For me, a camera that deals with that, and FINDING quality lenses is paramount... I would go for the Canon 7D, or Nikon 300s but they are just too expensive. Photography is a hobby, but I need it work now and then. But I am not a photographer by trade. So, it is down to three cameras: Pentax K7, Pentax Kx and Canon 550D. Buying a computer is pretty easy for me, in terms of choice, but laying down a thousand or more euros for a camera, wow, it is just mind-boggling. Thanks for what you wrote. Ned
Eetu 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 6:51 AM.