[Na Horuk]

Sometimes people think SR will fix everything. Impossible. For example, if SR can save 1mm of shake. But you shake 2mm when you push button, because you have arms extended, poor stance, are nervous, trying to be fast, etc.
Or if you shake in the third direction - SR does not work in all directions. If you tilt (yew) then you will not get much help.

Finally, a lot of people dont even wait for SR to activate. They push quickly and think that is enough. No. You have to look in viewfinder for SR icon to light up. This means SR is active and working. If you push shutter too soon, then SR is not active. Some cameras have option to have SR "always active in Live view", but that takes a lot of battery and can generate heat and noise.

Try improving these techniques, then you will get better SR results.

but I understand the thing the K3 was first pentax with in camera body stabilisation -

Not true. Pentax has long history with SR. And the SR got improved over the years.

( Olympus in latest OMD offer 5 sec handheld sharp pic , even in zoom end - and it's not a marketing trick I've seen this pics - it's just truly impressive )

But 5 seconds depends mostly on the photographer. If you cannot hold a camera still for 5 seconds, you cannot blame SR. Trust me, the photographer taking a sharp long exposure is not just running around and clicking. They take time to set their stance, they brace against wall, they have practice and experience.
We had similar legends on this forum, people say they took 2 second exposure with 300mm lens. I never believe in myths like that, not even when they are pro Pentax.

Here, this might help you:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/long-exposure-handhelds/steady-position-2.html

[photoptimist]

Here, we agree to some extent. I often shoot in TAv mode, choosing the shutter speed and aperture I want for creative control, and allowing the camera to select a suitable ISO. In many situations, I'd rather have a noisier but well-exposed, blur-free shot with the depth-of-field I intended, than a lower-ISO shot that has been compromised creatively. In those situations where I need to keep the ISO lower (for instance, to retain as much detail as possible by limiting noise), I'll drop the shutter speed and take several shots in succession (either using continuous shooting, or manually). One of those will usually be blur-free thanks to SR.

^^^THIS!

Low-light photography is always an exercise in compromised sharpness due to:
1) low shutter speed (blur from subject motion or residual uncorrected camera motion);
2) wide-open apertures (foreground-background out-of-focus blur and lens-corner softness blur); or
3) high ISO (overall blur from grain/noise).

It's then up to the photographer's creativity to decide which type of blur is acceptable or even to embrace the blur by intentionally accentuating motion blur, out-of-focus blur, or noise for it's creative effect on the image and mood of the scene.

[panonski]

Finally, a lot of people dont even wait for SR to activate. They push quickly and think that is enough. No. You have to look in viewfinder for SR icon to light up. This means SR is active and working. If you push shutter too soon, then SR is not active. Some cameras have option to have SR "always active in Live view", but that takes a lot of battery and can generate heat and noise. l

mmmm didn't know that - thanks

We had similar legends on this forum

not legend at all
The Olympus E-M1 Mark II Can Capture Sharp 5 Second Exposures Hand-Held!

[aslyfox]

. . . photographer's creativity.. . . .

??? what is that, where can you buy it, and how much does it cost ???

---

Last edited by aslyfox; 09-02-2017 at 05:15 AM.

[Rondec]

Obviously there are situations where you don't have a tripod or can't use one, but generally speaking, you will be better off using a tripod than relying on shake reduction in camera or lens for this long an exposure.

[sbh]

I also find SR useful for getting lower ISO.

Keep in mind that the K-3 has the previous version of SR. The newer SR II came first with the K-1 and then the K-P. I can't speak for the K-3 as I only have the K-5IIs and the K-1, but it has improved. So if SR is a key feature to you, the K-P might suit you better than the K-3.

[panonski]

I also find SR useful for getting lower ISO.

Keep in mind that the K-3 has the previous version of SR. The newer SR II came first with the K-1 and then the K-P. I can't speak for the K-3 as I only have the K-5IIs and the K-1, but it has improved. So if SR is important to you, the K-P might suit you better than the K-3.

K3 is a good performer, but I can trully say it lacks SR for be even twice as good.

I often shot people with Oly, because it's small. Using 1/20 sec and contiounus shooting, I always get decent images.

Till yesterday . I did not try this low iso technique on OLy. I was surprised it can go also at 10000 iso with no problem for rendering good and really accurate colors.

Pentax K3 will be amazingly good camera with little better SR.

For me , for best fast results - 1/30 is my maximum.

[BigMackCam]

K3 is a good performer, but I can trully say it lacks SR for be even twice as good.

You might be justified in saying the K-3's SR is lacking for you personally, but not as a general statement. I think you'll find the vast majority of owners (and reviewers) are impressed with it.

I'm quite prepared to believe that the EM1 MkII's SR is way better - but then it's a much newer camera and well over twice the price of the K-3II. I'd expect something for my money! Also, the 6.5 stops advertised for the EM1 MkII is based on a combination of sensor and lens SR, not just sensor. I think it's generally accepted that lens-based stabilisation is a bit more effective than sensor-based. A combination of the two should, indeed, be very powerful. Finally, it's a mirrorless system... there are fewer moving parts when a shot is taken. Fewer moving parts = less chance of movement.

These days, I really don't mind what camera I'm shooting with. Features like SR can be helpful, but most of the time they aren't (or shouldn't be) required to get the shot you want. You might have to work a little harder, or carry an additional bit of equipment (such as a monopod or tripod), but there's almost always a way to get the shot. This is all part of the fun - it's what we bring to the party

[JimJohnson]

I think another truism to go into this thread is knowing when to turn off SR. The steadier you can make the camera relative to the subject within the 1/180 total exposure time*, the less you need SR. There isn't really a single defined on-off point - using SR with a tripod might be advisable if the surface below the tripod isn't exactly bedrock. A crowded boardwalk is a good example.

I learned how to steady a camera for slower than 'recommended' shutter speeds back in the late-1970s. It wasn't exactly like you had a choice back then; film has fixed ISO, x-sync was 1/125 and hauling a tripod everywhere wasn't practical. You don't unlearn such techniques. One of the options for the fX button is to toggle SR on-off. I took it. And in iffy situations where I can take two shots, I take them with SR on then off.

*total exposure time with focal plane shutters is always x-sync or longer. Using a moving slit the exposure to any small section of the sensor can be much shorter than x-sync, but the total time for that slit to cross the sensor will be equal to x-sync.

[Skodadriver]

I am guilty of hoping that SR will combat my problems taking images but do realise that the steadier I can keep myself by resting a part of my body the more it helps.
I have problems with swaying back and forth, side to side and "squeezing the trigger" is often jerky. Add the vibration of the mirror working and the bulk of my images would embarrass me should I show them to anybody! I am not likely to get any younger or healthier so I need to be a bit savvy and find things to steady myself with.
Shake reduction is just that, shake reduction! not elimination (I wish) so improving one's shooting should go hand in glove with SR to get the best out of it.
One day I might get a camera with umpteen stops of shake reduction......but look forward to someone marketing shake elimination.
In the meantime I need to work with the monopod I bought to help my photography.

[normhead]

I was wondering about shake reduction system - I mean how ( actually ) is it good on K3... Since I have Oly Pen with 5 Axis stabilisation - and which is just incredible , I came to conclusion the Pentax Shake reduction on K3 - is not even a close match to that one.

Of course, larger sensor is heavier to control, because of larger movements - and heavier camera and longer distance from front of lens to the sensor is also the values we must equally justify.

But, in practice - who care about that - all we want to see is results. And my results are pretty poor.

I'm having troubles with sharper pics in difficult circumstances - low light - and when you have to slow down your shutter speed - it would be then. In low light environment .

So - my test, shows - with classical zoom lens - like Sigma 17-70 MM -

I cannot go below 1/30 - with very steady hands - in 70 mm end. Sometimes I get clean and sharp image with 1/20 - but the line is there.


It's really poor , but I understand the thing the K3 was first pentax with in camera body stabilisation - and performance is not as good in compare with leaders in that segment.

( Olympus in latest OMD offer 5 sec handheld sharp pic , even in zoom end - and it's not a marketing trick I've seen this pics - it's just truly impressive )

---

What's your experience here ?

I have mild handshake which prevented me from bring able to train as a woodcarver when the Canadian government refurbished the east wing on the parliament block. I was working with a master carver at the time, and my hands were so unsteady I couldn't even do his rough work for him. I regularly shoot as low as 1/6s .

Here's a shot taken at 1/10 second, hand held with SR. A slow enough exposure to blur the motion of the water.
So, in short, I have no idea what you're going on about.



Long story short, if you want a 5 second exposure use a tripod. Even for 1/30s images, my handshake can exceed the ability of SR to compensate. A 5 second exposure with no movement? That wouldn't be possible for me. But I have known folks who are steady enough to take long exposures without any SR. You're taking about a marketing ploy. You get one of those guys who doesn't need SR, you take a 5 second exposure and say "Look how good our SR is." When they guarantee that if you don't get the same results they'll refund your money I'll believe they are actually on to something. SR works really good, for people who are already really good at keeping the camera stable. I have to brace myself, and I have absolutely no doubt it would be the same using any SR system. And if the image is mission critical, I don't depend on any technological wizardry. I use a tripod and take away the possibility of movement beyond the capability of the SR system. There is no SR system that doesn't have limited capability. If you move enough, you ruin your image at slow shutter speeds, no matter what you use.

[CarlJF]

I usually got about 3 stops with the K-3. Which is what is announced for the camera. If it's not enough, there are newer bodies like the K-3ii, KP and K-70 having a better system, up to 4.5 stops and just as good as Olympus.

[panonski]

I usually got about 3 stops with the K-3. Which is what is announced for the camera. If it's not enough, there are newer bodies like the K-3ii, KP and K-70 having a better system, up to 4.5 stops and just as good as Olympus.

hmmmm.... I was practicing today again - and measued picture with my usual pixel peeping

I found heavy to get clear sharpness with NR on , if the shutter was below 1/30, when I'm on 70 mm length - and I tried that to point camera in some detailed printed box with small but good letters for that kind of tests.

It's good to know where exactly is the line of usable. Because NR is not perfection here, and 3 axis are kind of low... Bigger APS-C sensor sure have limitations.

I'm kind of OK with that. Just want to know where exactly is this thin line.

[CarlJF]

hmmmm.... I was practicing today again - and measued picture with my usual pixel peeping

I found heavy to get clear sharpness with NR on , if the shutter was below 1/30, when I'm on 70 mm length - and I tried that to point camera in some detailed printed box with small but good letters for that kind of tests.

It's good to know where exactly is the line of usable. Because NR is not perfection here, and 3 axis are kind of low... Bigger APS-C sensor sure have limitations.

I'm kind of OK with that. Just want to know where exactly is this thin line.

But what shutter speed do you have to used with SR off to get results to your satisfaction ? When I'm talking about 3 stops it's realtive to what I do with SR off, not the old 1/FL rule. This thumb rule comes the film era and is based on what is needed to get an acceptably sharp 8 x 10 print. If you're pixel peeping a 24MP picture, you'll a higher shutter speed since the 1/FL rule could show some blur, although it will not be apparent on the image at normal size and viewing distance.

Also note that 3-stops is pushing the system to its practical limit and you should not expect 100% sharp shots. I have about a 50% success rate with 3-stops SR, but YMMV. So, better take a few shots if when at this limit. But 2-stops is very doable with almost 100% sharp shots. Just for fun, I've tried going down to 4-stops and although shots are of the sharp, but the success rate is so low (something like 5-10%) that it's not of much practical value.

Just for fun, I've just done a quick test in my kitchen and got this, 0.4 second with a 50mm lens, 100% crop:


It's a good 4-stops of SR, even a bit more, with a K-3. But I needed about 5 five shots to get this acceptably sharp one... So, to answer the OP question, I guess this shows that SR in the K-3 works as expected....

[panonski]

But what shutter speed do you have to used with SR off to get results to your satisfaction ? When I'm talking about 3 stops it's realtive to what I do with SR off, not the old 1/FL rule. This thumb rule comes the film era and is based on what is needed to get an acceptably sharp 8 x 10 print. If you're pixel peeping a 24MP picture, you'll a higher shutter speed since the 1/FL rule could show some blur, although it will not be apparent on the image at normal size and viewing distance.

correct - I was shooting with 14Mpix size M*** .

Why I'm counting pixels .. Because I often shoot people, and sometimes I count on SR to get lower Iso...

I can easily go with 1/30 to shot the people, but I was wondering how low i really can go.

It seems for me, the blur becomes visible at speed twices low then recomended speed without SR on.

to be said - that means for 70 mm end - 1/100 shuter speed - am I right here ? From film era - it was valid rule how long is your lens lengt - that' how your lowest shutter speed can be.
It's true .

so, Im closeto 2 stop down from that when I get acceptable result with SR turned on - with 1/30 - 70 mm