[ogl]

I'd agree with that. Also, effectiveness of sensor SR isn't at its best at very low shutter speed (for instance 1 sec.), the value of SR drop as shutter speeds get slower than something like 1/4th sec.

Yes, effectiveness at wide and super-wide angle is lower than for tele lenses. I know than a lot of GR users could make sharp photos at 1/20-1/15 hand held. What is the advantages of SR for 18 mm lens of GR? 1-2 stops?
If acceleration unit could help to make sharp and low noise photos at ISO400-1600, no any sense for SR. IMO, of course.

[photoptimist]

Noise reduction chip and SR are conflicting views

Do you really need SR for 28 mm lens when you have the acceleration unit which help to use higher ISO ?

The reasonable limit of exposure for 28 mm lens is 1/30.
No need SR at all. Just raise ISO a bit. SR = additional weight and additional mechanical parts of camera.

You can shoot in heavy cloudy weather with f8 at 1/30 with ISO100. You can easy use f2.8 of GR at ISO200 and 1/30 in the twilight.

That's an interesting PoV. But there are three flaws to that logic.

First, it assumes that the only reason for a slow shutter speed is to compensate for low light. There's a very nice niche of photography that intentionally uses slower shutter speeds to blur moving objects in a scene whilst keeping the background or other elements sharp. Subjects such as water, sports, street, and fireworks can benefit from shutter times slower than 1/30 second (and with practice & SR, one can get good handheld shots at 1 second on a 28 mm).

Second, it assumes one never takes pictures at night or in dimly-lit cathedrals. Some conditions require BOTH higher ISO and slower shutter speeds.

Third, the two features absolutely do not conflict (the acceleration unit never prevents the use of SR and vice versa). At worst, they could be said to provide overlapping functionality in medium-dim lighting such as twilight. But in those conditions, the two features give the photographer more options to pick the combination of shutter speed, aperture, and ISO they need to make the image they want.


If one of the points of the GR is to cover as much of the span of photography in a pocketable travel camera, then the last thing you want is to be forced to carry a tripod (for slow shutter shots) or flash (for dim lighting). SR and the acceleration unit both work together to expand photographic options (and SR is a hell of a lot lighter than any tripod or flash).

[ogl]

First, it assumes that the only reason for a slow shutter speed is to compensate for low light. There's a very nice niche of photography that intentionally uses slower shutter speeds to blur moving objects in a scene whilst keeping the background or other elements sharp. Subjects such as water, sports, street, and fireworks can benefit from shutter times slower than 1/30 second (and with practice & SR, one can get good handheld shots at 1 second on a 28 mm).

Second, it assumes one never takes pictures at night or in dimly-lit cathedrals. Some conditions require BOTH higher ISO and slower shutter speeds.

Third, the two features absolutely do not conflict (the acceleration unit never prevents the use of SR and vice versa). At worst, they could be said to provide overlapping functionality in medium-dim lighting such as twilight. But in those conditions, the two features give the photographer more options to pick the combination of shutter speed, aperture, and ISO they need to make the image they want.

First. It's the basis of reasoning of using SR in GR.

SR doesn't works effective at wide-angle. It's your pure fantasy about 1 sec SR effectiveness.
What is 1 sec effectiveness of SR in Pentax cameras? 3%? Not above.
Don't I never use SR with my cameras and have no experience with SR with all my lenses?
It's really good for FA77 or DFA100 and I can get till 3-4 stops sometimes. Very rare even 5 stops.

As for FA*24 - SR in K-5IIs or K200D can't even give me 1.5 stop in real condition with effectiveness at least 30%.
Sharp photo with FA*24/2 at 1/15-1/20 with SR - the probability is very low. The best case - 1/30 instead of 1/40.

I can say that Pentax's SR effectiveness at wide angle is 1 stop. The shooting with exposure 1/20-1/8 is the big lottery. With very low effectiveness.


Second. The cathedrals needs much wider lens than 28 mm equiv.

Third - see the point 1.

It's simpler and much more effective - to raise ISO than to use SR in GR. SR is weak crutch for GR. Not the same as for DSLR.
SR in small camera adds more weight, size and complicates the circuitry engineering of GRIII.

I had been using GXR with 18/2.5 for many years. I know that I say.

[photoptimist]

First. It's the basis of reasoning of using SR in GR.

SR doesn't works effective at wide-angle. It's your pure fantasy about 1 sec SR effectiveness.
What is 1 sec effectiveness of SR in Pentax cameras? 3%? Not above.
Don't I never use SR with my cameras and have no experience with SR with all my lenses?
It's really good for FA77 or DFA100 and I can get till 3-4 stops sometimes. Very rare even 5 stops.

As for FA*24 - SR in K-5IIs or K200D can't even give me 1.5 stop in real condition with effectiveness at least 30%.
Sharp photo with FA*24/2 at 1/15-1/20 with SR - the probability is very low. The best case - 1/30 instead of 1/40.


Second. The cathedrals needs much wider lens than 28 mm equiv.

Third - see the point 1.

It's simpler and much more effective - to raise ISO than to use SR in GR. SR is weak crutch for GR. Not the same as for DSLR.
SR in small camera adds more weight, size and complicates the circuitry engineering of GRIII.

I had been using GXR with 18/2.5 for many years. I know that I say.

Everyone has a different experience with SR. I routinely get 3 stops SR on a 12 mm lens and occasionally have gotten 4 stops (but at a much lower keeper rate). There's no doubt that drift error in the gyro & accelerometer sensors affect the maximum duration of effective SR regardless of focal length but shutter times of 0.75 to 1.3 seconds aren't impossible. Shutter times of 0.25 to 0.5 second on 28 mm are very doable and longer is not impossible with training. And with digital, if the first shot isn't good enough, one can often take a deep breath and try again.

As for cathedrals & 28 mm, it's a poor photographer who can't find a good picture with any focal length in any setting. I'm sure there are millions of awesome cathedral shots on the internet that used 28 mm or narrower. If you are traveling with just a GR, you're going to find lots of great photographs inside cathedrals even if they aren't the stunning ones a UWA would take. And you're going to want BOTH high ISO and good SR -- even at ISO 6400 I often have to use shutter speeds much slower than 1/30.

We may quibble about how many stops are possible at 28 mm equivalent, but it's undeniable that a slow shutter speed shot with SR will look better than one without SR.

[house]

Second. The cathedrals needs much wider lens than 28 mm equiv

Ever been to Milan or Sevilla?
;-)

Other than that I agree with ogl. Introduce nothing that makes the camera larger. Just better sensor and sealing.

[Eyewanders]

Digital is not film.
The viewfinder was necessary, as there was no live view - how else would you frame your picture? And what you call now "full frame" was the ubiquitous small format.

The GR is an affordable, compact, fixed prime lens camera.

I assume that's rhetorical. "What I now call 'full-frame'"? We're mixing historically metaphors. I am merely stating that a digital GR, if the form factor was preserved, would *still* be a GR if it had a VF and a larger sensor. Personally, I am and have been more than happy with APSC for a camera in this size/class; shoe-horning a sensor that size into this line would worry me about battery life and bloat. But the popularity of likes of the X100 line shows us VF cameras are useful in more than just a cosmetic or nostalgic way.
You're right about what a GR is (though "affordable" is rather subjective) but that doesn't preclude a VF or larger sensor.
GR is about size, ease-of-use, and quality resultant shots, in that order.

[ogl]

Everyone has a different experience with SR. I routinely get 3 stops SR on a 12 mm lens and occasionally have gotten 4 stops (but at a much lower keeper rate). There's no doubt that drift error in the gyro & accelerometer sensors affect the maximum duration of effective SR regardless of focal length but shutter times of 0.75 to 1.3 seconds aren't impossible.

We may quibble about how many stops are possible at 28 mm equivalent, but it's undeniable that a slow shutter speed shot with SR will look better than one without SR.

It's possible, but with effectiveness close to several % in the best case.

Is there any sense to put SR with scanty effectiveness in small camera? And to make it bigger and heavier. Maybe not much, but bigger and heavier.
Or it's better to put acceleration unit which has MUCH HIGHER effectiveness with ISO. And to keep the dimension and weight.

[Eyewanders]

SR: I just don't think it's necessary in a 28mm equivalent, tiny and easily hand-stabilized camera, particularly if the trade-off for it is added size, complexity and cost.
I'd much rather see (harping about this everywhere) the return of phase-detection in the AF, and better internal sealing against contaminants to the sensor surface and light path.

[ogl]

If Ricoh could produce special version of SR for GRIII with light weight and high effectiveness for 1/20-1 sec. and the camera's size would be the same as GR, it's OK.

I have nothing against it

[ogl]

SR: I just don't think it's necessary in a 28mm equivalent, tiny and easily hand-stabilized camera, particularly if the trade-off for it is added size, complexity and cost.
I'd much rather see (harping about this everywhere) the return of phase-detection in the AF, and better internal sealing against contaminants to the sensor surface and light path.

Yes. Good WR, better AF, acceleration unit with 24 MP and 14 bit are enough. IMO

[Eyewanders]

Size matters.

[photoptimist]

It's possible, but with effectiveness close to several % in the best case.

Is there any sense to put SR with scanty effectiveness in small camera? And to make it bigger and heavier. Maybe not much, but bigger and heavier.
Or it's better to put acceleration unit which has MUCH HIGHER effectiveness with ISO. And to keep the dimension and weight.

We can agree to exclude scanty performance SR. Fortunately, Pentax knows how to make good performance SR. I've owned four cameras (3 Pentax & 1 Minolta) that all provided good SR performance at 28 mm equivalent or wider.

The nicer compact point-and-shoots have SR (usually built into the lens) which proves SR does not need to be complex, big, or heavy.

[Kunzite]

Ogl is referring to some old SR systems. K200D's is antiquated.
Besides... SR is not necessarily the sensor moving system used by our K-mount DSLRs, it could also be optical.

[ogl]

Ogl is referring to some old SR systems. K200D's is antiquated.
Besides... SR is not necessarily the sensor moving system used by our K-mount DSLRs, it could also be optical.

K-5IIs SR is old too?

[thibs]

Ogl is referring to some old SR systems. K200D's is antiquated.
Besides... SR is not necessarily the sensor moving system used by our K-mount DSLRs, it could also be optical.

Indeed, it can be optical too. But sensor based would unlock Pixelshift possibility.