Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-23-2010, 10:10 PM   #16
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Southern England
Posts: 495
Oops (again)!

I've gone through my workings again and realised the formula still isn't right! (Though my derivation for the formula was flawed, the end result unfortunately worked correctly for the 35-105 case - unlucky!)

The correct formula (for ALL zooms) is:

x = 2*H*L/(H+L)

and the min SR effectiveness is still x/H *100%

Note that in general you won't be able to set the exact value for x, but if you choose the nearest lower value, then the formula for min SR above still stands (and it applies to when you have the zoom set to max focal length). If however the value of x is significantly closer to the next value higher, then you might want to choose this instead, and the formula for min SR is as follows (and applies to when you have the zoom set to min):

min SR effectiveness = (2*L - x)/L *100%

BUT this particular expression fails for x > 2L, because you start to get shake magnification, so never set your camera to more than 2L! (This is especially true for lenses with large zoom ratios.)

Generally, you'd want to choose the lower value - it's safer.

10-23-2010, 10:52 PM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Southern England
Posts: 495
Some real values

I thought I'd do some calculations for real lenses:

28-70: theoretical setting: 40mm, actual setting: 40mm, min SR: 57%
28-80: theoretical setting: 41mm, actual setting: 40mm, min SR: 50%
28-90: theoretical setting: 43mm, actual setting: 40mm, min SR: 44%
28-105: theoretical setting: 44mm, actual setting: 45mm, min SR: 39%
35-70: theoretical setting: 47mm, actual setting: 45mm, min SR: 64%
35-105: theoretical setting: 52.5mm, actual setting: 50mm, min SR: 48%
35-135: theoretical setting: 56mm, actual setting: 55mm, min SR: 40%
70-150: theoretical setting: 95mm, actual setting: 100mm, min SR: 57%
70-150: theoretical setting: 95mm, actual setting: 85mm, min SR: 57% **
75-150: theoretical setting: 100mm, actual setting: 100mm, min SR: 67%
70-210: theoretical setting: 105mm, actual setting: 100mm, min SR: 48%
80-200: theoretical setting: 114mm, actual setting: 100mm, min SR: 48%
80-200: theoretical setting: 114mm, actual setting: 120mm, min SR: 50% ***
80-210: theoretical setting: 116mm, actual setting: 120mm, min SR: 50%
60-300: theoretical setting: 100mm, actual setting: 100mm, min SR: 33%

Note that I did the calculations for both "next lower" and "next higher" for the 70-150 and 80-200 lenses and for the 70-150 you can see that you can just as easily use the lower value, despite it being significantly further from the theoretical value.
10-24-2010, 01:54 AM   #18
Site Supporter
Douglas_of_Sweden's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Stockholm
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,353
I wouldn't follow this idea. You would still be missleading the camera to introduce unvanted blurr as soon as you shoot at a focal length below the setting you have entered. I'd recommend either turning the shake reduction off, or set it to the shortest focal length, unless you know that you are going to work for a while at a specific (and longer) focal length.

The A35-105 is a fine lens. Good for portraits.

No problems here since it was used on a Program A with BNC400 film.
10-24-2010, 02:14 AM   #19
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Southern England
Posts: 495
QuoteOriginally posted by Douglas_of_Sweden Quote
I wouldn't follow this idea. You would still be missleading the camera to introduce unvanted blurr as soon as you shoot at a focal length below the setting you have entered. I'd recommend either turning the shake reduction off, or set it to the shortest focal length, unless you know that you are going to work for a while at a specific (and longer) focal length...
No, the camera wouldn't be introducing blur at FLs other than that which you input. The camera will still be moving the sensor to counteract the shake, it's just that the movement will be less than optimal for longer FLs, and more than optimal for shorter FLs.

Iy you want the best SR possible, then you have to enter the FL at which you're operating. If you don't want the hassle, then you should enter as I've described.

You'll notice that, most of the time, with lenses of moderate zoom ratios, you'll be getting about 50% of SR at the extremes of the zoom range. What this actually means is that the camera will be reducing shake by a factor of 2. This means you get a worst case of 1 stop of shake reduction. Which is pretty worthwhile, I reckon.

You get 100% SR when the FL is equal to the value input to the camera (obviously). If everything were perfect, the camera would exactly counteract the shake, so you'd end up with no blur at all - but of course everything isn't perfect, so you get around 2-3 stops worth of shake reduction (usually, depending upon shutter speed).

10-24-2010, 02:25 AM   #20
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Southern England
Posts: 495
Talking about shutter speed has given me an idea: maybe we should skew the FL value so that the longer end of the zoom range is favoured. That would mean that we'd be getting less shake reduction at the short end, more at the long end. We'd end up with slightly (but only slightly) larger values for x. I'll have to have a think...

Meanwhile, here's an interesting link:

Falk Lumo: Pentax shake reduction revisited
10-24-2010, 07:12 AM   #21
Site Supporter
Douglas_of_Sweden's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Stockholm
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,353
QuoteOriginally posted by m42man Quote
No, the camera wouldn't be introducing blur at FLs other than that which you input. The camera will still be moving the sensor to counteract the shake, it's just that the movement will be less than optimal for longer FLs, and more than optimal for shorter FLs.
You contradict yourself. Obivously you introduce blurr if the sensor move "more than optimal for shorter FLs". It means that any motion you do while exposing is magnified by the SR system.
10-24-2010, 10:24 PM   #22
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Southern England
Posts: 495
QuoteOriginally posted by Douglas_of_Sweden Quote
You contradict yourself. Obivously you introduce blurr if the sensor move "more than optimal for shorter FLs". It means that any motion you do while exposing is magnified by the SR system.
No, I'm afraid you don't understand. If the camera moves the sensor exactly to counteract the shake, then there will be zero blur. If it moves it by 50%, say, you'll get 50% of the blur you would have if SR was switched off. If it moves it by 150%, then you'll again get 50% of the blur you would have with SR off.

Moving the sensor too much therefore doesn't "introduce" blur - unless you move it by more than 200%, in which case you get what I've called "shake magnification". The whole point of my little expedition into maths was to find a value which keeps the sensor movement within bounds, even at minimum FL.
10-25-2010, 01:14 AM   #23
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 61
QuoteOriginally posted by m42man Quote
No, I'm afraid you don't understand. If the camera moves the sensor exactly to counteract the shake, then there will be zero blur. If it moves it by 50%, say, you'll get 50% of the blur you would have if SR was switched off. If it moves it by 150%, then you'll again get 50% of the blur you would have with SR off.

Moving the sensor too much therefore doesn't "introduce" blur - unless you move it by more than 200%, in which case you get what I've called "shake magnification". The whole point of my little expedition into maths was to find a value which keeps the sensor movement within bounds, even at minimum FL.
Took me a while, but I get it. Thanks for doing the math on this one. Much appreciated.

10-25-2010, 01:56 AM   #24
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Southern England
Posts: 495
QuoteOriginally posted by Turbo_Spool900 Quote
Took me a while, but I get it. Thanks for doing the math on this one. Much appreciated.
Thanks for getting it, and thanks for the thanks! And you're very welcome - I had a lot of fun figuring it out (something to keep the old grey matter ticking over!).

Ironically, I myself possess only one vintage zoom - a Pentax M 75-150mm f4, which I've had from new. It was used a lot in the 80s (on my MX), and was pleased with the results. I seem to remember it was measured to be pretty top-notch by the pro reviewers. However, I have to say I don't really use it now, because it's a bit bulky, the focusing is a little heavy for my taste - and because I won't always get full SR (ouch!).
01-09-2011, 08:26 AM   #25
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago Suburbs.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 500
different ways to skin a cat

Thanks to both m42man and Douglas of Sweden for having two different approaches (and opinions). I appreciate this and will cogitate about both. Seems like Douglas of Sweden has an approach similar to mine, kind of like a "hippocratic oath version" (doctor, do no harm) where the SR is set at a more conservative level. m42man has a more "joystick control" approach similar to flying an airplane, keeping things within bounds of estimated extremes. You both get 50% blur in one scenario, but the blur ends up being in opposite directions (one is under-controlled (Douglas and me), the other method is over-controlled (m42man). But it is the same AMOUNT of blur. Interesting to think about.

Of course, like I said earlier (in a different thread), I would rather not have to think about it at all, Pentax limitations being what they are. Thanks to both of you......

GA

Last edited by goldenarrow; 01-10-2011 at 07:52 AM. Reason: text added
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, length, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Manual Focal Length Input WhichWayIsUp? Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 11 12-15-2016 05:32 AM
How Can You Easily Tell How far a Given Focal Length will Zoom? jaieger Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 20 07-18-2010 09:47 AM
SR Focal Length Input for a Manual Zoom Lens? frank Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 13 03-15-2009 03:04 PM
manual lens focal length nodretep Pentax DSLR Discussion 3 03-11-2009 04:16 AM
Input focal length for a manual lens jpzk Photographic Technique 11 01-14-2009 08:50 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:29 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top