[JeffJS]

Hee, thanks. Now if I can just figure out how to minimize the effects of Photobucket's butchery in coping with downsized images. Or use something else for this kind of thing.

Boris is right, though, starting with good technique is key: they still haven't apparently stabilized any film cameras, even with lens-based systems. Good ergonomics really help, too: I wouldn't have complained if Pentax kept making more models on this chassis, it just fits me so well, it's like a match trigger or something. I've got good hopes for the K-5's chassis, too, though I haven't been able to try one.

You can avoid the butchery in one of two ways as far as I know. 1> Upload downsized photos so you can control what gets done to them. 2> Flickr is free to a point as well. Even at the $24 per year for unlimited, I find it quite nice for sharing the larger photos. I guess there are also the file dump sites but I never know whether I trust them or not.

No amount of fancy tech can replace solid practices. You are right, film cameras were not body stabilized (would have been a pretty neat trick), and probably better than 50% of my photos from those times, are blurred. Even full rolls (should have laid off that Vodka sooner ).

Re the 20 vs 7/5. If you really love the size of the 20, you'll find yourself wanting the grip for the K5 (or K7). I found the K10/20 to be near perfect for me and had to add the grip on the K7/5 to make it dead on perfect. It's an expensive prospect if you stay in the Pentax name brand family though. For what I actually use the grip for (aside from the extra power), a block of wood would have sufficed. I'm still in 35slr mode where I would just tilt the camera without the aid of separate controls.

[WerTicus]

The fact is the k-5 + f1.4 prime will be unbeatable in low light - a d7000 and f1.2 prime will not be as good. Thats the facts, is it worth switching? Probably for you, with your desire to shoot this style and your lack of heavy investment in nikon, yes.

[Rupert]

I would not own a camera without SR.....sure, the new lenses often have it, at a higher price, but that does not help with older lenses or some of those classic primes.
I often use this as an example of what sold me on SR when I first got my K10D, but I have hundreds more equally as good....I just happen to like this one best.

I went out to check my propane level, and had my K10D with the Bigma mounted, SR on, since I had been shooting Squirrels through the glass bay window. I looked up and about 35-40 ft away was this handsome male Cardinal.....I aimed and shot. My older DS would never have gotten this shot. I think my K20D is even a tad better, and I look forward to the K5 being at least equal, and am sure it is.
Best Regards!
1/20 Handheld ISO 560 F6.7 @ 500mm (Bigma 50-500)
[IMG] [/IMG]

[JeffJS]

I've always liked that shot Rupert..

With respect to the K5 in low light,

The light source




The result, even with my body partially blocking the light.



Camera Pentax K-5
Exposure 0.025 sec (1/40)
Aperture f/2.8
Focal Length 85 mm (FA*85 f1:1.4)
ISO Speed 2000
Exposure Bias 0 EV
Flash Off, Did not fire

As for in body SR in low light on the K5, I would say it isn't as critical with the performance of the camera but it does help.

[dexmus]

I would not own a camera without SR.....sure, the new lenses often have it, at a higher price, but that does not help with older lenses or some of those classic primes.
I often use this as an example of what sold me on SR when I first got my K10D, but I have hundreds more equally as good....I just happen to like this one best.

I went out to check my propane level, and had my K10D with the Bigma mounted, SR on, since I had been shooting Squirrels through the glass bay window. I looked up and about 35-40 ft away was this handsome male Cardinal.....I aimed and shot. My older DS would never have gotten this shot. I think my K20D is even a tad better, and I look forward to the K5 being at least equal, and am sure it is.
Best Regards!

And that's a great shot. SR becomes very important with zoom lenses (although I am sure your personal skill played a vital role in this picture).

But as I said earlier, for street shots, using 35, 50, or 85 primes, there won't be many occasions where you would want to go slower than 1/50s. Unless, you just want to go and shoot buildings and empty roads at night..and in that case, why not just use a tripod/monopod.

SR is good, and definitely saves a lot of money over the IS zoom lenses, but the practical use is limited to long telephoto focal lengths.

cheers,

[aleonx3]

Why is the in-body SR attractive? Lens SR is on newer lenses is superior to in-body.

Why is it not?

Basically it's if you want Nikon or Pentax lenses. D7000 will perform basically the same as the K-5 with ISO performance.

Put the same test with 50 1.4 lens on D7000 and k-5 and try to shoot 1/6 wide open TAv mode and see which one is better.

Welcome to the forum

Your main gripe seems to be underexposure. Big question is why you get underexposure.

Under the same circumstances, the D70 at ISO1600 and with f/1.4 and the T2i at ISO6400 with f/2.8 should give you the same exposure results when using the same shutter speed.

So something does not make sense to me and I guess that you used longer shutter speeds with the T2i solving your underexposure. Either the T2i was equipped with an IS lens (and IS was on) or it simply handled/balanced better allowing you to keep the camera more steady so no blur occurred.

If there ain't shortish primes with IS/VR (I never researched it), you will indeed benefit from a system with built-in stabilization for static subjects.

ISO6400 with f2.8 has better chance of no blur because of DOF.

[Boris]

The fact is the k-5 + f1.4 prime will be unbeatable in low light - a d7000 and f1.2 prime will not be as good.

If Nikon f1.2 prime is AF, then it is not as clear as you present it to be. In fact, in low light with very fast lenses 99.9% will depend on the photographer's skill.

[KungPOW]

Any jump up from the D70 sensor will help your images. That camera, good for its time, is using a sensor a few generations old.

The new batch, K-5, D7000, D700, just blow the older ones away.

As for SR in camera, it is the top feature I miss when i shoot non-Pentax. For street shots, at night, with either no moving subjects, or you allow motion blur, then SR is a great addition.

There are plenty of other low light situations where the subject is static, and the light is poor. Like museums where SR is a fantastic addition to a camera.

For a while, the prevaling opinion was that SR or IS was not needed, or even usefull for wide angle lenses. Now that Nikon has released the 16-35 f4 VR, there are plenty of people changing there minds about the topic. Funny, they didn't consider VR for wide angle shots when all that was available was "consumer glass" like the 16-85 VR.

The other group that are "pro-wide angle SR" are the in body SR users. Sony, Olympus, Pentax. These guys just use the tool when apropriate, and seldom do they have the "its not needed on a wide prime" debate.

As for a system switch, How long is your gear list that you would be selling? If its just a camera and a lens then don't let that hold you back. Have a good look at all the cameras that use in body SR.

If you need to sell 20 lenses, and 4 bodies, well, maybe just add a camera and a lens with in body SR.

I expect, eventually, both Nikon and Canon will add in body SR to their bodies. Canon has already filed a patent.

Aother thing I have noticed with lenses that have IS, when compaired to the same lens without, is that the IS lenses are not as sharp. Now this might just be a few isolated cases, but I consider it worth thinking about. Compair the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 to teh 17-50 f2.8 VC. The VC version is not as sharp. And the Nikon 24-120 ED to teh 24-120 VR, same loss of sharpness. just something to consider.

[Ratmagiclady]

You can avoid the butchery in one of two ways as far as I know. 1> Upload downsized photos so you can control what gets done to them. 2> Flickr is free to a point as well. Even at the $24 per year for unlimited, I find it quite nice for sharing the larger photos. I guess there are also the file dump sites but I never know whether I trust them or not.

Indeed. Ive actually got one, but worry about photo rights, and actually have found the Photobucket a little easier to deal with on the old machine, so it's sort of become a habit to throw things on there to post and chatter about.

Re the 20 vs 7/5. If you really love the size of the 20, you'll find yourself wanting the grip for the K5 (or K7). I found the K10/20 to be near perfect for me and had to add the grip on the K7/5 to make it dead on perfect. It's an expensive prospect if you stay in the Pentax name brand family though. For what I actually use the grip for (aside from the extra power), a block of wood would have sufficed. I'm still in 35slr mode where I would just tilt the camera without the aid of separate controls.

Well, I've been a low-light shooter for a long time since before I was DSLRed, so I do like winders and grips for steadiness, at least on smaller cameras, anyway. The K20d's nice for me gripless, too, but the grip usually stays on there. (It also helps cause it means memory and battery are two less things in the way of me getting out the door. Makes domestic life go that much smoother. ) So with K-5s, I'd definitely be looking at the grips. I like to have some heft in the camera body and generally try not to carry too much weight in glass. Which is very relative at times, but a fast Pentax 50 is really nothing that way. Slower, pricier, bigger, and more expensive stabilized zooms got nothing on that, and claims that in-lens IS is actually significantly better even if you have it seem pretty mixed/dubious, at least in most applications.

One way to learn some steady-technique is do lots of low-light shooting with this:



Yeah, that's an 85/1.8. I've got a 50/1.2 for when it's too dim to focus well with it.

(Speaking of Photobucket, I once uploaded the wrong frame and never replaced it, but there's a rudimentary, if slow and crashy editor there. Hence lousy photo handy. For when you're not on your own machine, better than nothing. )

Hi, Btw, Rupert. There's a nice feat of off-the cuff birding.

Why is it not?

Put the same test with 50 1.4 lens on D7000 and k-5 and try to shoot 1/6 wide open TAv mode and see which one is better.

Of course in body is attractive, but if you can get even better SR, why not go for the even better SR? This was before I realized all the lenses he would be using don't really have SR.

And please read my statement again. I said absolutely nothing about SR, I was purely stating that ISO performance would be very similar on the cameras. 1/6th hand held with no SR is very possible for someone with steady hands by the way....

[Ratmagiclady]

Of course in body is attractive, but if you can get even better SR, why not go for the even better SR? This was before I realized all the lenses he would be using don't really have SR.

Claims of 'Even Better' seem pretty theoretical, not to mention marginal when you start talking practical use, most especially for lenses that don't exist, are otherwise not right for the job, or cannot be obtained, to begin with.

('Even better' for me might be a K-5 with the newer SR, but with the better high-ISO, it wouldn't even *have* to be better. (I mean, hey, if I can potentially get shots at speeds six stops longer than rule of thumb, does spending thousands and thousands to *maybe* get 6.1 really make sense? )

[JeffJS]

Indeed. Ive actually got one, but worry about photo rights, and actually have found the Photobucket a little easier to deal with on the old machine, so it's sort of become a habit to throw things on there to post and chatter about.



Well, I've been a low-light shooter for a long time since before I was DSLRed, so I do like winders and grips for steadiness, at least on smaller cameras, anyway. The K20d's nice for me gripless, too, but the grip usually stays on there. (It also helps cause it means memory and battery are two less things in the way of me getting out the door. Makes domestic life go that much smoother. ) So with K-5s, I'd definitely be looking at the grips. I like to have some heft in the camera body and generally try not to carry too much weight in glass. Which is very relative at times, but a fast Pentax 50 is really nothing that way. Slower, pricier, bigger, and more expensive stabilized zooms got nothing on that.

One way to learn some steady-technique is do lots of low-light shooting with this:



Yeah, that's an 85/1.8. I've got a 50/1.2 for when it's too dim to focus well with it.

(Speaking of Photobucket, I once uploaded the wrong frame and never replaced it, but there's a rudimentary, if slow and crashy editor there. Hence lousy photo handy. For when you're not on your own machine, better than nothing. )

Hi, Btw, Rupert. There's a nice feat of off-the cuff birding.

I didn't care for the grip on the 10/20, too bulky for me and the camera kept feeling like it would slip out of my hand for some reason. The 7 and 5 are built in such a way however that you almost have a recess for your finger tips (if you carry right handed), to grab the camera with. With the grip, there is just enough room for all of my fingers to fit in that recess. My hand measures 10.5 inches around the knuckles (which means any pair of gloves I buy have to last a good long time because I won't soon find another pair that fits).

85 f1.8..mmmmmm tasty (glad you said what we were looking at. Picture is small so I can't really tell)! 50 f1.2, got that one in the Pentax flavor. I really learned good steadying technique with my Panasonic FZ20. I could get a 1.5 second shot with that camera. 2 if I really managed to stay steady. As much as people might think it's about getting stiff bodied, it's actually better to relax a little bit. Trying to stay rigid will actually induce shaking I've found. Maybe it's different for others though.

[Ratmagiclady]

I didn't care for the grip on the 10/20, too bulky for me and the camera kept feeling like it would slip out of my hand for some reason. The 7 and 5 are built in such a way however that you almost have a recess for your finger tips (if you carry right handed), to grab the camera with. With the grip, there is just enough room for all of my fingers to fit in that recess. My hand measures 10.5 inches around the knuckles (which means any pair of gloves I buy have to last a good long time because I won't soon find another pair that fits).

Yeah, actually the k20d with grip is just a hair bigger than would be truly comfortable if I hadn't added a little extra grippy material to the back, but I have pretty good hands for different sizes of things. Long and fairly *thin* fingers can get around things as well or better than long and thick ones. (Also notice I added a bit of inner tube to that F-1N's winder. That's about as big as I can really go happily, but it fits nice. )

85 f1.8..mmmmmm tasty (glad you said what we were looking at. Picture is small so I can't really tell)! 50 f1.2, got that one in the Pentax flavor. I really learned good steadying technique with my Panasonic FZ20. I could get a 1.5 second shot with that camera. 2 if I really managed to stay steady. As much as people might think it's about getting stiff bodied, it's actually better to relax a little bit. Trying to stay rigid will actually induce shaking I've found. Maybe it's different for others though.

Yeah, that happens to be an FZ-7 next to there. I was really thinking about having a machine shop grind me a metal plate for the bottom just to ballast the little fellow without making him too big, but even that older OIS was pretty sci-fi to me. Teeny sensor and all. Still, ISO 800, monochrome, was about the best one could do without things really looking non-pretty. Also that's the 85 that I sometimes claim someone could glue onto there and I might not notice for a couple weeks of Canon carry.

Definitely, you don't want to get all stiff, does more harm than good, that, especially when there's SR to take up any slack. But being too stiff will just magnify any shaking.

Claims of 'Even Better' seem pretty theoretical, not to mention marginal when you start talking practical use, most especially for lenses that don't exist, are otherwise not right for the job, or cannot be obtained, to begin with.

('Even better' for me might be a K-5 with the newer SR, but with the better high-ISO, it wouldn't even *have* to be better. (I mean, hey, if I can potentially get shots at speeds six stops longer than rule of thumb, does spending thousands and thousands to *maybe* get 6.1 really make sense? )

So basically you agreed with everything I have said.

[Ratmagiclady]

So basically you agreed with everything I have said.

Except for that there's necessarily a worthwhile 'Even better' for other applications, either. *Maybe* if I were an all-star wildlife photog toting near ten grand of gear to begin with, would any theoretical difference be worth fussing over, but I'm not even convinced there, especially in the potentials of each technology. I rely on the reports of others here, but I do understand that at those big magnifications, the lens-element jiggling method has the nice effect of also stabilizing the viewfinder image, but those specialized lenses are about the size and weight and cost of a Suzuki, anyway, and to have lens-stabilization on those all you have to do if you have in-body IS is.... turn off the body's SR and let the lens's system do its thing.