Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-08-2011, 06:19 AM   #1
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Galati
Posts: 89
Image stabilisation - In camera and In lens

Hi folks! A few clarifications please regarding image stabilization from someone who has actually used the eqpt discussed:

Eqpt: Pentax K5 body with Sigma 300mm OS lens.
Qs:
1. Can one use the OS feature of Sigma lenses on Pentax K5 bodies?
2. Can one use both (in camera and in lens) IS modes simultaneously on a K5?
3. If yes, does switching on both enhance stabilization further or reduce it?
4. If only either camera or lens stabilisation can be used, which is more efficient – the ‘in body’ stabilization or the ‘in lens’ stabilisation?
5. Lastly, has anyone here used a K5 with a 300mm (or greater) lens and an equivalent by Canon or Nikon? Which offers a sharper picture in terms of camera shake/stability when hand held? (Put another way, is the Pentax in camera stabilization more efficient or the in lens versions of Canon/Nikon? Reference is to their 2nd generation IS lenses.)

Thanks in advance for any guidance!

06-08-2011, 06:44 AM   #2
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,878
1) yes
2) yes
3) no - The IS effect doesn't "stack" - pentax IS and sigma OS are two completely different methods of stabilisation and are quite incompatible. besides having one IS system active at a time also keeps battery drain to a minimum.
4) both are equally effective, any difference seen between them are largely based on subjective interpretations of sharpness.
5) presently I use a nikkor AF-S 400mm f/2.8G ED VR on my D3s, the closet Pentax equivalent I have to it is the FA*300mm f/2.8 ED [IF] which on APS-C format is around 450mm and there is essentially no difference* - I give a slight advantage to the pentax system because it reduces the weight in the lens because the IS is already in the camera.

*In terms of image quality, the nikon D3s with the Nikkor 400mm f/2.8G lens is very heavy and therefore not what I would call hand-holdable for extended periods of time as always, YMMV.

Last edited by Digitalis; 06-08-2011 at 06:55 AM.
06-08-2011, 07:19 AM   #3
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 1,535
QuoteOriginally posted by Khukri Quote
Hi folks! A few clarifications please regarding image stabilization from someone who has actually used the eqpt discussed:

Eqpt: Pentax K5 body with Sigma 300mm OS lens.
Qs:
1. Can one use the OS feature of Sigma lenses on Pentax K5 bodies?
2. Can one use both (in camera and in lens) IS modes simultaneously on a K5?
3. If yes, does switching on both enhance stabilization further or reduce it?
4. If only either camera or lens stabilisation can be used, which is more efficient – the ‘in body’ stabilization or the ‘in lens’ stabilisation?
5. Lastly, has anyone here used a K5 with a 300mm (or greater) lens and an equivalent by Canon or Nikon? Which offers a sharper picture in terms of camera shake/stability when hand held? (Put another way, is the Pentax in camera stabilization more efficient or the in lens versions of Canon/Nikon? Reference is to their 2nd generation IS lenses.)
Hi Khukri,

I shoot about 95%+ at 300mm or over, and mostly handheld.

I can only answer with guesses since I haven't seen a test so far that I feel is an objective test for Image Stabilization performance.

1. Third party OS lenses can be used on Pentax bodies.

2. It's possible to use both systems simultaneously, but it's probably not a good idea. Any Stabilization system tries to correct for camera shake in a manner that is designed into the particular system alone, and two systems that are not designed to use each other will probably result in a conflict in the algorithms and decreased or erratic performance.

3. It's probably not a good idea -- see above.

4. In-lens systems are usually recognized as allowing a higher degree of stabilization, but since there is no "standard" amount of camera shake, it's not really possible to test this objectively IMO, so any individual would have to test each system and decide which is more effective for their personal level and pattern of shake.

The amount and nature of the shake can also vary according to an individual's state of fatigue or other factors like caffeine consumption, so each of the two systems might be more effective than the other at a given time. . .In my use, when I'm fresh, camera shake is generally a relatively slow relatively regular oscillation, when I'm fatigued, it's faster, at higher amplitude, and more erratic.

5. I have no experience with other platforms, so I have no idea as to the effectiveness of their systems.

All that being said, in-lens stabilization can allow greater exposure and AF focus accuracy since the image is stabilized before it reaches the camera body. This is due to a more stable image for finer capabilities in exposure and AF focusing precision. Personally, I'm fine with in-body stabilization, only really count on it to help, so don't push it to mfg claimed maximum stabilization (pretty much count on about 2 stops as a general rule), and prefer stabilization on every lens as opposed to buying it in specific ones, even if it might be more efficient in the latter case.

The bottom line is, if you have both systems available, test them in different situations and draw your own conclusions.

Just my 2¢. . .

Scott
06-08-2011, 08:07 AM   #4
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,119
The first thing you need to do is to understand how the two independent stabilization systems work, and then you will have your answers.

There are two approaches to image stabilization
  1. lens or optical stabilization and
  2. in body or sensor stabilization.
What they both have in common is a set of sensors that sense movement in the X, Y and Z axis directions. Each of these systems does this independently.

So you mount the optically stabilized lens on a body with in the body stabilization. What happens?

Well the light enters the lens, and the lens sensors sense the motion and make near instantaneous adjustments to an optical element that adjusts the focus of the light so as to counteract the sensed movement. So as the light passes through this element, it goes from un-stabilized to stabilized.

The now stabilized light then continues its trek in to the body. The body has motion sensors also, in the X, Y and Z axis, that senses the SAME MOVEMENT of the camera assembly (body and lens). It to makes adjustments to the position of the camera sensor to counteract the sensed movement in near instantaneous time. Now remember that the light went from un-stabilized to stabilized by passing through the optical element in the lens that was adjusted to the sensed movement. Well now this currently "stabilized" light is now hitting the camera's sensor that too has been independently adjusted for the SAME sensed shaking motion (has no idea the light has been "corrected for movement") and thus, essentially puts the motion back into the light, there by counteracting the action and effect of the optical stabilization elements.

So, each of these systems works against the other. Why?
  1. Well, neither knows about the existence of the other.
  2. Neither knows that the other is enabled.
  3. The optical stabilization system was invented for use with film cameras since it was impossible to move a roll of film, to adjust or counteract the movement.
  4. Both the lens and body designers have designed in an on/off switch so that the user can make an intelligent decision as to employing either on or the other - but not both.

hope that helps.....

06-08-2011, 08:16 AM   #5
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,656
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
3) no - The IS effect doesn't "stack" - pentax IS and sigma OS are two completely different methods of stabilisation and are quite incompatible.
I can attest to that. I have a Sigma 18-25 OS HSM. I prefer to use its OS to the camera's. Not because it works better, but because I like the stabilized image in the viewfinder. Occasionally, after changing from my 31 to the Sigma, I forget to turn the camera SR off. The camera's SR and the lens's OS absolutely do not play well together.
06-08-2011, 10:46 AM   #6
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Owego, NY
Posts: 976
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
I can attest to that. I have a Sigma 18-25 OS HSM. I prefer to use its OS to the camera's. Not because it works better, but because I like the stabilized image in the viewfinder. Occasionally, after changing from my 31 to the Sigma, I forget to turn the camera SR off. The camera's SR and the lens's OS absolutely do not play well together.
Do you mean 18-250?

Anecdotally, in-lens IS supposedly does better at longer focal lengths, and in-body at shorter.

At longer focal lengths, the stabilized viewfinder (and similarly, stabilized AF sensor view of the workd) is highly beneficial for in-lens IS.

On the other hand - in-lens IS can't correct for camera rotation around the lens axis, while in-body IS can.

As others have stated, you can choose one or the other at a given time but not both.

I have noticed one annoyance with in-lens IS when combined with the Pentax K-5's movie mode - Even when the OS switch is "off" the lens element moves when the OS system gets/loses power. End result is that when you touch the AF button (even in MF mode), the image shifts, and then it shifts back after the AF timeout.
06-08-2011, 02:21 PM   #7
Pentaxian
Aegon's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,414
I'm not going to provide an answer number-by-number. Because Q5 is somewhat open ended on the topic of comparing systems I'll throw in a few of my thoughts.

The lenses I love are only available with in-body stabilization. DA21, DA40, FA77. That makes one part of the decision easier.

Another thing which doesn't really matter as much but still bugs me is that lens-based IS requires an optical group for stabilization. Generally, one input element, one stabilizing active element, and one output element. And I'm not a lens designer and probably wrong, but the same lens could be designed with fewer elements if it didn't need IS. I figure that fewer elements means greater light transmission and lower cost.

Finally, in-body SR is bought exactly once with the camera, whereas in-lens IS is purchased with every compatible lens, adding a significant incremental expense.
06-09-2011, 12:45 AM   #8
Inactive Account




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Suomi , Finland
Posts: 373
Pitkiä teleillä, Macro macro kuvauksessa ja jalustalla kuvatessa ei käytetä kuvanvakanta. Tämä on tehtaan ohje. Ja omakokemys yleensä kuvanvakain heikentää kuvanlaatua aina kaikissa olosuhteissa. Jos ei välitä sutuista kuvissa voi käyttää vaikka kengurukeppiä kuvatessa.

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!
camera, dslr, k-5, k-5 ii, k-5 iis, k5, lens, pentax, pentax k-5, sigma, stabilization
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K7 - image stabilisation on or off? RobG Video and Pentax HDSLRs 25 02-27-2011 08:50 PM
Side effect of stabilisation? RobG Pentax DSLR Discussion 57 02-27-2010 01:42 PM
K7 and Shake correction/image stabilisation problem glenfender Pentax DSLR Discussion 3 02-26-2010 06:41 AM
Image stabilisation without the tripod Vylen Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 9 01-22-2009 05:28 PM
Idea on image stabilisation quantum Pentax DSLR Discussion 8 05-20-2008 07:23 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:35 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