Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-17-2013, 09:21 PM   #1
Senior Member
Gerbermiester's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: British Columbia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 163
FF shake Reduction...?

There was some discussion recently on how Pentax cameras would deal with stabilization if they were to start producing a FF body. Namely, would in-body sensor stabilization be possible/feasible while keeping the K mount?

This latest list of lens patents may provide some light on how Ricoh may be planning on getting around camera shake in a FF body. But then again, perhaps not. Lens patents are frequently never actually produced into real lenses.

The patents are for three lenses: an APS-C lens, a 35mm lens, and a 645 lens. All three appear to have optical shake reduction rather than sensor based shake reduction. The act of patenting these lenses provides an interesting insight into the thoughts of some Ricoh engineers. But, at this point it's not much use besides fodder for speculation. Caught my attention though, so I thought I'd share it.

Here's a link to the Patents

11-18-2013, 12:54 AM   #2
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,181
Yes, I thought the SR was the most interesting part of these patents. In fact, the 35/2.8 macro looks redundant/unnecessary without it.

But is the in-lens SR only because they're macro lenses? I have to admit, I've never sought to determine just how effective the in-body SR is on macro shots, compared to standard lenses. Is there much difference?
11-18-2013, 01:23 AM - 1 Like   #3
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,691
QuoteOriginally posted by Gerbermiester Quote
There was some discussion recently on how Pentax cameras would deal with stabilization if they were to start producing a FF body. Namely, would in-body sensor stabilization be possible/feasible while keeping the K mount?
Sony did it, with a similar mount.
11-18-2013, 02:34 AM   #4
Veteran Member
mtux's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,388
Having in lens SR for macro lenses seems useful to me, because that makes the viewfinder view stabilized and make it easier to frame and take the photo, even if the lens SR isn't stronger than body.
and a DFA 60mm f/2.8 macro SR would replace my DFA50 immediately. because of both SR and longer FL.

11-20-2013, 03:12 PM   #5
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by mtux Quote
and a DFA 60mm f/2.8 macro SR would replace my DFA50 immediately. because of both SR and longer FL.
You know, they DO make a 100mm macro, too...
11-20-2013, 06:33 PM   #6
Veteran Member
mtux's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,388
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
You know, they DO make a 100mm macro, too...
Yes! but I prefer shorter FL to be more usable!
11-23-2013, 08:23 AM   #7
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Nevada, USA
Posts: 470
QuoteOriginally posted by DSims Quote
Yes, I thought the SR was the most interesting part of these patents. In fact, the 35/2.8 macro looks redundant/unnecessary without it.

But is the in-lens SR only because they're macro lenses? I have to admit, I've never sought to determine just how effective the in-body SR is on macro shots, compared to standard lenses. Is there much difference?
Camera shake can have both rotational and translational components.

Three rototional movements are
1) rotation about the camera's horizontal centerline (pointing the camera up and down),
2) rotation about the camera's vertical centerlin (pointing to the right and left),
3) rotation about the lens' centerline (like turning a steering wheel).

Three translational movements (shifting position of the camera without changing direction it is pointed) are
1) moving the camera up and down (without changing direction its pointed at)
2) moving the camera from side to side,
3) moving the camera closer and further from the target

At normal subject distances, rotational movements are most important. A fraction of a degree tilt when you are shooting the house across the street can change the position of the image projected on the sensor significantly. But if you shift the camera to the left by say 1 mm, the shift in the image on the sensor is imperceptible since the scene captured on the sensor is 20,000 mm wide.

At close working distances, translational movements are most important. A shift to the left of 1 mm at 1:1 magnification gives a 1 mm out of 24 mm (width of APSC sensor) shift of the captured image, definitely noticeable.

Pentax shake reduction corrects for rotational movements (correction for the lens centerline rotation movement was introduced with the K-5, I think). Olympus uses 5-axis correction to include the rotational and the first 2 transtlation corrections on some of their cameras. Not sure about Sony. The lens centerline rotation cannot be corrected with lens based systems. As far as I know, no one has correction for the 3rd translational movement.

So to answer your question, the Pentax in-body shake reduction system is not the most effective for macro. However I'm not sure if in-lens correction systems are effective for translational movement either.
11-23-2013, 09:05 AM   #8
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by cfraz Quote
But if you shift the camera to the left by say 1 mm, the shift in the image on the sensor is imperceptible since the scene captured on the sensor is 20,000 mm wide.
Hmmm... it's actually going to be quite perceptible. That shift is going to be 100's of pixels... i.e. 778 mm of 'subject' distance.

If rotational movement correction was incredibly important Pentax would have a very large advantage over Canon and Nikon... one that I don't see in practice; I can't really tell the difference, myself.

11-23-2013, 09:37 AM   #9
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,691
It wouldn't, because the image projected on the sensor would "move" far less than 1mm. We're talking about a 1/20,000 change, which translates in 0.3 pixels if my math is correct.
11-23-2013, 09:59 AM   #10
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
It wouldn't, because the image projected on the sensor would "move" far less than 1mm. We're talking about a 1/20,000 change, which translates in 0.3 pixels if my math is correct.
Is that a reply to me or someone else?
11-23-2013, 10:36 AM   #11
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,691
To you (I don't usually quote the previous post).
11-23-2013, 10:40 AM   #12
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,738
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Hmmm... it's actually going to be quite perceptible. That shift is going to be 100's of pixels... i.e. 778 mm of 'subject' distance.

If rotational movement correction was incredibly important Pentax would have a very large advantage over Canon and Nikon... one that I don't see in practice; I can't really tell the difference, myself.
Most images stabilizations corrects only rotational movements, including optical stabilization in most lenses.
In most situations it's the up/down and left/right rotational movements that is most critical to correct.

If you shift the camera right/left or up/down without any rotational movement, 1mm camera shift will translate to 1mm shift of the scene you capture, so it will only be noticeable on very high magnification shots.
11-23-2013, 10:53 AM   #13
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
I think this is maybe a definition problem. If I use the definitions above, then canon clearly corrects for rotational modes 1 + 2. Sorry, I think I just misread 'Pentax corrects for...' as a surrogate for 'Canon / Nikon doesn't correct for'.
11-23-2013, 12:20 PM   #14
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Nevada, USA
Posts: 470
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
I think this is maybe a definition problem. If I use the definitions above, then canon clearly corrects for rotational modes 1 + 2. Sorry, I think I just misread 'Pentax corrects for...' as a surrogate for 'Canon / Nikon doesn't correct for'.
Ah, I didn't mean to imply that lens shake reduction does not correct rotational movement.
11-23-2013, 01:29 PM   #15
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,604
Maybe I miss the point, but if the camera and sensor move by 1mm, horizontally, this mean the whole scene is moved by 1/23.6 = 4.2% horizontally. This is huge and sure to be noticed.

A rotation of 1 impact depend mostly of what is your field of view. The wider angle you have, the less visible. But still 1 shake is more than enough to be visible.
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!
body, ff, full-frame, lens, lenses, patents, pentax, reduction, ricoh, sensor, stabilization
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Shake Reduction brent-b Pentax K-30 & K-50 6 02-17-2013 07:58 PM
Shake reduction drawbar Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 9 09-30-2012 11:13 PM
Shake Reduction Study Dionisis_K Pentax K-5 8 07-02-2012 08:27 AM
Shake Reduction Problem lukelbd Pentax K-5 4 05-13-2012 11:59 PM
Macro-shake reduction bjake Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 11 04-02-2012 03:50 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:50 PM. | 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