I didn't know this about IS...

FHPhotographer · 02-09-2009, 03:26 PM

I guess I should have known this, but until I got a moderate telephoto and set out to do some hand held bird images, it didn't come up. The benefit of the Pentax in-body stabilization is that it works on every lens, but the downside is that the image in the view finder is not stabilized. Handhold a 100mm lens on a Pentax and a Nikon (lens) and you can see the difference: the outcome may be similar, but the VF image on the Pentax is moving around in a disconcerting way.
As I said, who knew?
Brian

Wheatfield · 02-09-2009, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by FHPhotographer

I guess I should have known this, but until I got a moderate telephoto and set out to do some hand held bird images, it didn't come up. The benefit of the Pentax in-body stabilization is that it works on every lens, but the downside is that the image in the view finder is not stabilized. Handhold a 100mm lens on a Pentax and a Nikon (lens) and you can see the difference: the outcome may be similar, but the VF image on the Pentax is moving around in a disconcerting way.
As I said, who knew?
Brian

I did.....

Gooshin · 02-09-2009, 03:29 PM

NO WAI

Vylen · 02-09-2009, 03:36 PM

i prefer in-body stabilisation - the fact that you can't see it through the lens is a benefit in a sense... it makes you want to hand hold things as perfectly as you can - which you really should be trying to do in the first place.

Quicksand · 02-09-2009, 03:39 PM

Yeah, the image on my $50 old stabilized 500mm lens moves around really disconcertingly in my Pentax viewfinder, while the image on my $50 old stabilized Nikon lens -- wait, no, that's not right -- my $50 old stabilized Canon -- no, that doesn't work either -- oh, never mind.

kenyee · 02-09-2009, 04:19 PM

LOL. You'd think this would be obvious. In-lens means it really is stabilized before it hits the sensor and your viewfinder ;-)
I think it's pretty cool...gives you straight-ahead visual feedback that you can press the shutter instead of having to glance down at the hand symbol (I wish the K20D made another beep noise for the hand symbol sometimes)...

Wheatfield · 02-09-2009, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by Quicksand

Yeah, the image on my $50 old stabilized 500mm lens moves around really disconcertingly in my Pentax viewfinder, while the image on my $50 old stabilized Nikon lens -- wait, no, that's not right -- my $50 old stabilized Canon -- no, that doesn't work either -- oh, never mind.

I don't think that was the point.
Though for me, that is the compromise. In body SR is a leap of faith compared to in lens SR.
Using live view with the SR invoked is kind of neat, BTW.

**GaryM** · 02-09-2009, 05:12 PM

For long glass I would prefer in-lens IS. However, attach something like a 50/1.4, and that's where in-body IS really shines.

**Lowell Goudge** · 02-09-2009, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

I don't think that was the point.
Though for me, that is the compromise. In body SR is a leap of faith compared to in lens SR.
Using live view with the SR invoked is kind of neat, BTW.

except that it teaches the absolute worst way to hold the camera and have a stable base to take pictures from.

I think that is why they do it though, because most P&S shooters have no idea what a view finder is. Now let's see them hold that 500mm AT ALL at arm's length. Only if they have the arms of a gorilla

EricT · 02-09-2009, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by GaryM

For long glass I would prefer in-lens IS. However, attach something like a 50/1.4, and that's where in-body IS really shines.

and where there are no alternative in-lens IS options.

sebberry · 02-09-2009, 05:19 PM

I like the in-lens IS on my Canon S3 P&S, primarily because I can tell that it is working. I don't find the in-body shake reduction works quite as well.

Quicksand · 02-09-2009, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

I don't think that was the point.
Though for me, that is the compromise. In body SR is a leap of faith compared to in lens SR.
Using live view with the SR invoked is kind of neat, BTW.

Yeah, I was just having fun.

I agree in-lens stabilization has some nice benefits: it's often obvious when it has kicked in, and it's easier to acquire focus on a smallish object if it's not moving around as your hands jiggle.

arbutusq · 02-09-2009, 11:33 PM

The more I use SR on my long lenses (nothing like a 50mm though!) the better I get at being stable myself. I sometimes feel a bit seasick using Nikon VR lenses. Floating away......

Jasvox · 02-10-2009, 12:03 AM

One cool thing about having in-body SR is, you only have to pay for it once!

Jason

Jewelltrail · 02-10-2009, 01:46 AM

Quote:

sebberry
I like the in-lens IS on my Canon S3 P&S, primarily because I can tell that it is working. I don't find the in-body shake reduction works quite as well.

I agree, the IS on my Canon S3 is more effective than what I have on my K20, but not by a lot. But, for posterity, I would much rather have the images from the K20 & in-body IS, than the images from the S3 with its in-lens IS.

No matter how you slice it, the $$ returned on the in-body stabilization system is much greater. And I agree with Vylen's analysis, that holding as steady as possible is better taught with the in-body system.

You can't please all of the people all of the time.

02-09-2009, 03:26 PM	#1
FHPhotographer Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Fountain Hills, AZ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,297	I didn't know this about IS... I guess I should have known this, but until I got a moderate telephoto and set out to do some hand held bird images, it didn't come up. The benefit of the Pentax in-body stabilization is that it works on every lens, but the downside is that the image in the view finder is not stabilized. Handhold a 100mm lens on a Pentax and a Nikon (lens) and you can see the difference: the outcome may be similar, but the VF image on the Pentax is moving around in a disconcerting way. As I said, who knew? Brian

02-09-2009, 03:28 PM	#2
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Originally posted by FHPhotographer I guess I should have known this, but until I got a moderate telephoto and set out to do some hand held bird images, it didn't come up. The benefit of the Pentax in-body stabilization is that it works on every lens, but the downside is that the image in the view finder is not stabilized. Handhold a 100mm lens on a Pentax and a Nikon (lens) and you can see the difference: the outcome may be similar, but the VF image on the Pentax is moving around in a disconcerting way. As I said, who knew? Brian I did.....

02-09-2009, 03:29 PM	#3
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	NO WAI

02-09-2009, 03:36 PM	#4
Vylen Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,262	i prefer in-body stabilisation - the fact that you can't see it through the lens is a benefit in a sense... it makes you want to hand hold things as perfectly as you can - which you really should be trying to do in the first place.

02-09-2009, 03:39 PM	#5
Quicksand Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Central Ohio (formerly SF Bay Area) Posts: 1,519	Yeah, the image on my $50 old stabilized 500mm lens moves around really disconcertingly in my Pentax viewfinder, while the image on my $50 old stabilized Nikon lens -- wait, no, that's not right -- my $50 old stabilized Canon -- no, that doesn't work either -- oh, never mind.

02-09-2009, 04:19 PM	#6
kenyee Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Boston, PRofMA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,026	LOL. You'd think this would be obvious. In-lens means it really is stabilized before it hits the sensor and your viewfinder ;-) I think it's pretty cool...gives you straight-ahead visual feedback that you can press the shutter instead of having to glance down at the hand symbol (I wish the K20D made another beep noise for the hand symbol sometimes)...

02-09-2009, 04:44 PM	#7
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Originally posted by Quicksand Yeah, the image on my $50 old stabilized 500mm lens moves around really disconcertingly in my Pentax viewfinder, while the image on my $50 old stabilized Nikon lens -- wait, no, that's not right -- my $50 old stabilized Canon -- no, that doesn't work either -- oh, never mind. I don't think that was the point. Though for me, that is the compromise. In body SR is a leap of faith compared to in lens SR. Using live view with the SR invoked is kind of neat, BTW.

02-09-2009, 05:12 PM	#8
GaryM Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Montclair, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 426	For long glass I would prefer in-lens IS. However, attach something like a 50/1.4, and that's where in-body IS really shines.

02-09-2009, 05:19 PM	#9
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,887	Originally posted by Wheatfield I don't think that was the point. Though for me, that is the compromise. In body SR is a leap of faith compared to in lens SR. Using live view with the SR invoked is kind of neat, BTW. except that it teaches the absolute worst way to hold the camera and have a stable base to take pictures from. I think that is why they do it though, because most P&S shooters have no idea what a view finder is. Now let's see them hold that 500mm AT ALL at arm's length. Only if they have the arms of a gorilla

02-09-2009, 05:19 PM	#10
EricT Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 484	Originally posted by GaryM For long glass I would prefer in-lens IS. However, attach something like a 50/1.4, and that's where in-body IS really shines. and where there are no alternative in-lens IS options.

02-09-2009, 05:19 PM	#11
sebberry Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Frozen white North Photos: Albums Posts: 1,135	I like the in-lens IS on my Canon S3 P&S, primarily because I can tell that it is working. I don't find the in-body shake reduction works quite as well.

02-09-2009, 05:23 PM	#12
Quicksand Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Central Ohio (formerly SF Bay Area) Posts: 1,519	Originally posted by Wheatfield I don't think that was the point. Though for me, that is the compromise. In body SR is a leap of faith compared to in lens SR. Using live view with the SR invoked is kind of neat, BTW. Yeah, I was just having fun. I agree in-lens stabilization has some nice benefits: it's often obvious when it has kicked in, and it's easier to acquire focus on a smallish object if it's not moving around as your hands jiggle.

02-09-2009, 11:33 PM	#13
arbutusq Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Vancouver BC canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 380	The more I use SR on my long lenses (nothing like a 50mm though!) the better I get at being stable myself. I sometimes feel a bit seasick using Nikon VR lenses. Floating away......

02-10-2009, 12:03 AM	#14
Jasvox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 3,107	One cool thing about having in-body SR is, you only have to pay for it once! Jason

02-10-2009, 01:46 AM	#15
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Quote: sebberry I like the in-lens IS on my Canon S3 P&S, primarily because I can tell that it is working. I don't find the in-body shake reduction works quite as well. I agree, the IS on my Canon S3 is more effective than what I have on my K20, but not by a lot. But, for posterity, I would much rather have the images from the K20 & in-body IS, than the images from the S3 with its in-lens IS. No matter how you slice it, the $$ returned on the in-body stabilization system is much greater. And I agree with Vylen's analysis, that holding as steady as possible is better taught with the in-body system. You can't please all of the people all of the time.