[void7910]

Here's a link to his blog article on SR in the K7 Falk Lumo: Search results for stabilization Good read

[Lowell Goudge]

i think that there is no real way to make any claim about how many stops image stabilization can add to your shooting because it is only as good as your technique.

You see claims of 3 or 4 stops over the "rule of thumb" which is 1/FL for 35mm full frame cameras, but note that this is based upon blowing the 23x36mm frame up into an 8x10 inch image. (sorry for mixing units, but that is what the "rule of thumb" is based upon). For pentax APS-C sensors, the rule of thumb is 1 / (FL x 1.5) because we have to enlarge the image 50% more than a full frame image to achieve the 8 x 10 inch print.

by that thinking, when using my SMC 300F4 and 1.7x AF TC, without SR I should be able to hand hold at 1/750 and above and still get a sharp image.

an improvement of 1 stop would be 1/375
an improvement of 2 stops would be 1/187
an improvement of 3 stops would be 1/194
an improvement of 4 stops would be 1/97
an improvement of 5 stops would be 1/48

The image below, is a 100% crop with no PP out of a K7 frame shot at 1/40 of a second, using the lens combo above.

By all reasonable counting methods, this is in excess of 5 stops improvement, but actually has more to do with technique than SR, although I have to admit SR is an important player.

THis shot was taken with me standing upright, and unsupported (i.e. not leaning on anything for additional bracing, hand held with no additional help from grips, gun stocks etc, one hand on the camera (right) and one on the lens (left) and elbows tucked into my body, feet about 18 inches apart.



and here is the full image



I challenge any one to do better. SO who says SR is best at wide angle????

[jatrax]

Lowell,

Not sure if you caught it but that was your 10,000 post. Congratulations!!!

[raider]

wow! 5 stops of SR correction!! Lowell, are u a sniper by profession? only a sniper can have steady hands like that!! Impressive!!

[Wheatfield]

I think something to remember about shake reduction is that if you are depending on it to make up for sloppy camera holding, it is going to be ineffective, no matter how it is implemented.
As Lowell has shown, good technique it of critical importance.

[RioRico]

As Lowell has shown, good technique it of critical importance.

Indeed. Breath control; stance|posture, body-bracing; finger discipline; it takes a bit of practice. And it's not unlike pistol marksmanship, except that most cameras don't kick back. Hmmm, if only we'd had SR when I was on the .45 ACP team...

[audiobomber]

I think something to remember about shake reduction is that if you are depending on it to make up for sloppy camera holding, it is going to be ineffective, no matter how it is implemented.

Agreed. The main advantage that people ascribe to In-Lens Stabilization is that the image is stabilized in the viewfinder. I don't see that as terribly useful. In fact I prefer to see camera jitter in the viewfinder, it reminds me to settle down and mind my technique.

---

Last edited by audiobomber; 09-11-2011 at 08:52 AM.

[JinDesu]

Indeed. Breath control; stance|posture, body-bracing; finger discipline; it takes a bit of practice. And it's not unlike pistol marksmanship, except that most cameras don't kick back. Hmmm, if only we'd had SR when I was on the .45 ACP team...

They should teach the 6 sniping positions in camera classes. I go prone all the time!

[Rondec]

I think something to remember about shake reduction is that if you are depending on it to make up for sloppy camera holding, it is going to be ineffective, no matter how it is implemented.
As Lowell has shown, good technique it of critical importance.

I think SR gives about two stops (maybe three sometimes) of improvement over what your normal hand holding ability is. Without SR, I can get to the rule of thumb for APS-C (1/focal length * 1.5), but not a whole lot better than that. The thing to remember is that these rules of thumb were created prior to 12 megapixel sensors and pixel peeping. Even Ansel Adams was often not pleased with his hand holding ability at 1/focal length and used tripods as much as possible.

If someone thinks that SR isn't working, it is likely that their technique isn't getting them to the baseline, than that it actually isn't effective.

[RioRico]

Even Ansel Adams was often not pleased with his hand holding ability at 1/focal length and used tripods as much as possible.

In THE CAMERA, Ansel notes that handheld shooting a 50mm lens at 1/50 sec was NOT sharp. Handholding the 50mm didn't get sharp till he exposed at 1/250 sec. So the sharpness ROT (rule of thumb) for 135/FF cams is 1 / (FL*5).

That multiplier is a bit more than 2 stops. If we assume that SR gives a 2-3 stop advantage, then we can use the 1/FL ROT. But like the Basic Speed Limit is "no faster than is safe", so the Basic Exposure Rule is "as fast as possible". Except with flowing water, etc.

[Lowell Goudge]

Lowell,

Not sure if you caught it but that was your 10,000 post. Congratulations!!!

never even noticed. Thanks

wow! 5 stops of SR correction!! Lowell, are u a sniper by profession? only a sniper can have steady hands like that!! Impressive!!

Not at all, but I would only go as far as 2-3 stops of gain from SR. Technique is everything, and I have to thank the bird too. usually they don't sit still for you. you have to remember that SR dooes nothing for the subject movement.

[yusuf]

.. I don't really have any problems going as low as 1/3 with the right technique.

Can you share your technique. Nice pics btw.

[philbaum]

I dont' see anything wrong with the SR. Its more about technique. If you don't have a good steady technique, then no OS/SR system will help. I don't really have any problems going as low as 1/3 with the right technique.

here's one I took at 1/3

.....

That BW shot of Chicago, i assume, is terrific. Congrats!

The thing that hasn't been mentioned very much about lens OS, is the size and volume of the resulting lens. For example, Sigma dropped production of their 50-150mm non-os lens which apparently was about the size of the Pentax 50-135mm. They then produced a 50-150, OS version that was about the same size as their 70-200, a much bigger lens.

Young people are growing up with small phones built-into their cell phones. I really doubt that there are going to be a ton of sales of these overgrown OS lenses. As i mentioned in a current thread about my 3 days at a wooden boat festival in this forum, i found that carrying even a small number of reasonable size Pentax lenses wasn't all that enjoyable for an extended period.

I believe that Sigma and Tamron are making a mistake if they make all of their lenses into these large, heavy OS lenses. The new mirrorless compact cameras show that today's public is largely in favor of more compact, lighterweight cameras. I'm not saying ALL, i'm saying many folks are not going to carry heavy lenses around for very long unless they are getting paid.

BTW, with the K5, perhaps Kr, one gets with the SR, that built in leveling bubble in the view screen. I used that yesterday on a tripod for a shot where i wouldn't have much room for cropping. It worked really well!!!

I shoot live theatre a lot and need faster shutter speeds to freeze actors on stage. Where SR technology helps me is the horizon correction. Before the K5, i used to do a lot of pp levelling. Not anymore, horizon correction works great!!!