I was once again at the local library and was browsing the Feb 2010 issue of the German "Foto Magazin" fotoMagazin | Aktuelles Heft | Aktuelles Heft

One of the articles compared the results of different in-body image stabilization and in-lens image stabilization methods or applications. As far as I understood (my German's not really that good), Pentax finished last in both short and long FL comparison. In the long end the results were in general fairly close to each other, but in the short end the Pentax results really stood out as the worst by far.

OK, so the in-lens method can be more effective, but how come did even Sony etc. IBIS manage to do it better?

Sorry, the results don't seem to be on the net, naturally.



P.S. I always end up posting in the wrong subforum, so here in the Everything else it is...

[Wheatfield]

I always wonder how shake reduction is "tested".
Is it someone with Parkinson's taking pictures?

I doubt very much that anyone is testing it in a particularly scientific fashion, which would be to build a device that the camera can be mounted to that will provide precisely the same amount of vibration to each product.

One of the things that exacerbates camera shake is a lightweight camera.
Heavier cameras don't shake as badly as light ones, all else being relatively equal.
The light weight of Pentax bodies vs. the competition works against the shake reduction.
I also question depending on SR as a replacement for good technique.
A solid tripod has always been considered a must have accessory for good photography.
Why has this changed?

As something slightly tangential, I was selling cameras when red eye reduction became a must have feature.
Because it didn't completely eliminate red eye, especially with smaller bodies where the flash was right on top of the lens, a lot of cameras took it on the chin because people still got red eye.
Back then, people were looking for a silver bullet to replace good photographic technique (in this case, buying a camera and accessory flash).
I think the same thing is happening with shake reduction.
people are, by nature, dangerously lazy, so they are looking for that silver bullet that will allow them to have bad technique and still get good pictures.

But I really thing the testing methodology needs to be questioned. Even sufferers of Parkinson's Disease have good days and bad days.

[digitaldevo]

All I can say is phooey! lol. I still had my Canon gear when I bought my K10D and I tested, side by side, Canon's in lens IS in L glass(300mm f/4 IS USM L is only one I had left) to the K10D using a Novoflex 400mm f/5.6 and there was no real difference in performance that I could notice. The only main and noticeable difference was the lens IS you could visually see, and it always made me feel seasick, rofl. I even went as far to test the in body IS in the K10D up to 1200mm by adding a 3x TC onto the Novoflex, and low and behold it worked darn well and gave me a usable shot for at least 5x7" prints, not bad for a 3x TC, lol.

[GerryL]

Does it really matter?
To me if the device is working, then well and good.
I need not compare it to others as, you will most definitely always find a fault, be it with the system you are using or with the other system.
With Pentax or with others with the in-body SR, all your lenses would have SR and would turn out as cost effective.
With the lens SR, you have to buy the SR every time you buy a lens, not unless you buy one without it and you will induce shake on your photos when shooting low light or without a tripod.
So, what is advantageous in the end, I really don't know and I don't care because all I care about is the system I am using.
I don't see the point or reason as to why people always compare and this is just usually fault finding and self-concious and lacking self-confidence on their chosen equipment.
Now, if I was an engineer designing for Pentax, then I might give a damn.
Film cameras didn't even have SR in the past and people took good photos!

[aleonx3]

It does not matter since I know it is working for me. I use 50mm MF lens a lot of times usually under 1/10 shutter and able to get clear shots handheld everytime. My friend using the other brands can rarely get similar shots in the same situation. Those reports are meaningless to me except to steer new comers from trying in body SR cameras and justifying the cost of lens based IS.

[Ratmagiclady]

Reviewers say that there are so many variables in trying to compare stabilization systems that it's very hard to test objectively, no matter how assiduous you are about them: camera shake can involve a whole lot of factors, not all of them even related to the machinery itself: the only way is to make a whole lot of images at different shutter speeds and score them subjectively, then show the probability of sharpness at each: that's not even taking into account the various ways that camera shake can manifest: is it a sudden jolt, a slow sway, a slow or fast vibration, where in the camera-lens combination is there the most motion, ...then things like how well does the system respond when there's no or *less* motion. Does it overcorrect when the shooter's very steady on their own?

One system might be better at any number of these combinations than the next, so even if you could test all the cameras exactly the same way, it might not indicate what a given person might get in practice.


You're probably better off asking a whole bunch of people who've tried both types. The general consensus seems to be there isn't a huge difference in practice. I've only used the in-camera kind, myself, but my understanding of the consensus is that the in-lens type may be a bit more powerful to some folks' estimations, but the difference in practice isn't huge. For someone like me, who's pretty steady on a good day, anyway, and mostly needs the SR for lower-light stuff with shorter lenses, I think it's the best solution, especially since no amount of money, even if I had it, can buy my favorite FL's I use in primes.

[PentaxPoke]

I don't know which is better, but both methods certainly work well. I really do like being able to see the SR working through the viewfinder in IS-type lenses. It gives you a good idea of how much shake the system is reducing. At long focal lengths, it is just like looking through image-stabilized binoculars. Many may know this already, but if you would ever like to see how the SR system is working on your Pentax, simply turn on the live view, and watch through the LCD. By turning SR on and off, you can see how well it works.

[reeftool]

Well, the Pentax SR system in the K10D works pretty darn good for me. The first time I used it was outside on a very cold night, around 10F with wind, and I got a whole mess of good handheld, no flash shots of a holiday parade and fireworks. It may be true that IS lenses might perform a little better, especially long telephotos, but our Pentax's have a good working SR on ANY lens. Most review sites I have seen list the in body SR of Pentax as one of it's best features.

[Nass]

A British magazine just came up with much the same result, nil points for Pentax SR.

I don't have any other brands so I can't compare, but I do seem to have more fuzzy shots than I'd expect with my K-7.

[er1kksen]

Pentax SR consistently scores lower in published tests than the in-body IS systems of Sony and Olympus (not a total surprise, Sony did it first and Oly has a smaller sensor to shift). What's new?

[GerryL]

Pentax SR consistently scores lower in published tests than the in-body IS systems of Sony and Olympus (not a total surprise, Sony did it first and Oly has a smaller sensor to shift). What's new?

Plus Pentax doesn't advertise much so these people can't give good points to somebody who can't feed them.

[er1kksen]

Plus Pentax doesn't advertise much so these people can't give good points to somebody who can't feed them.

This is a valid point when applied to many larger publications and websites but when the independent, non-sponsored and DIY tests tend to lean in the same direction... it lends credence.