Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-09-2017, 07:13 PM   #106
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
BruceBanner's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Blue Mountains, NSW, Australia
Posts: 2,486
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
To me in the restaurant shot above the blurred out waitress is part of the appeal of the image. I tossed the images without motion blur.



Given that blur from camera movement is observable at 1/1000s, and we don't know when it stops, that i find that highly unlikely.



I've not noticed slower AF with SR on and have no idea where that is coming from. IN fact for most of my bursts I set the camera for first frame confirmation only and don't refocus after the first image. That's the only way to get an 8 FPS burst. If the subject appears to have moved out of my DoF I lift my finger off the shutter release and force the camera to refocus. Many time this works for even a 23 shot burst.

I'm going to turn off SR when I see conclusive evidence I should. I see absotley no reason to accept speculation about this, especially since I get so many sharp images with it on.
Well, 1/1000s is a little misleading, I mean what lens/focal length/user etc, are we talking about the drunk alcoholic uncle shooting with his 300mm? FWIW tho I can shoot wide open in sunny australia with shutter speeds easily exceeding 1/1000.
But no, I take your point entirely, even shooting with a 50mm lens with speeds of up to 1/500th SR will have a benefit =)
Just because I can shoot a shot with my 50mm at 1/50th of a second or under doesn't mean I have a high success rate in doing so, if we were to compare my averages in doing so with SR on and off I am sure SR will assist in my shots being more correct more often than not.

I'm not sure where you read 'slower AF'? was that me? If so that's my bad as that's not what I meant, I meant AF is less accurate with SR on (if at all?!). It was another one of those 'Internet articles' that I think I read and another user here in this thread mentioned, that disabling SR can lead to more shots in focus, especially with AF.C mode being used. Again tho.. where's the evidence?!

QuoteOriginally posted by ffking Quote
Reading this thread, and thinking a little further myself from my original contribution, I'm going to marginally change my position. Actually SR is a specific tool for a specific set of conditions and, as such, should be left off by default. The problem is that it's also effectively a safety measure - like auto exposure -and it's something that few of us think about in the heat of the moment - so it's safer to leave on as default in the same way that you might spin the dial to Auto to ensure an acceptable if not optimal shot when you simply don't have time to optimise the settings. Either way, it makes sense to have at least one user mode where it's turned off, or to set the top selector dial to SR so that it can be turned on or off with one click of the 3rd control wheel - but I'd have to see in practice what pros and cons that brings with it
I feel similarly. I have a feeling I will leave mine on as default and toggle off only when passing that 1/1000+ shutter speeds or perhaps high action AF.C moments, just to see if I feel I'm getting more from the camera than I used to (tho god knows there is no way to prove this other than gut feeling which could just be placebo!).


QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
If you provide some kind of evidence as to why it should be left off, this would seem more reasonable. SR is for a specific condition, that being, when you hand is touching the camera. The rest of the time you can turn it off.

Even putting you finger on the shutter release button to trigger the shutter on a camera mounted on a tripod can cause enough camera movement to degrade an image. Unless you are shooting hands free and vibration free (mirror shock).. SR should be on.

One of my big complaints with SR, is I can't turn it on for the 2 second delay. Even a remote isn't workable if there is going to be mirror shock. I've had my camera out on nights with a light wind and seen my camera shaking because of tripod movement while on the timer. Unfortunately my only option is to take hand held shots, because I can't force the camera to use SR while on the 2 second delay.

I often shoot a burst with SR on, doing macro or telephoto hand held, Much of the time my hand movements exceed the capability of SR and I get nothing. But because I shoot a burst, if I shoot a four shot burst, on one of them the camera might be still enough to get me an image with the help of SR. Without SR I'd have nothing to show for my efforts. But then, as with anything, I always use the limits of technology. Always lookingg for the easy path. If others want to live in the past and ignore the benefits of SR, which I often find to be just astounding (my picture above is a fairly classic example, an image that in the days of film would have had to have been taken with a tripod but today was hand shot standing up in a public space using SR and a .3 second exposure)) I actually have no issue with that. What I do have an issue is with if people giving advice to others based on antiquated film era ideas and thought processes, while offering no evidence to suggest that what they advocate has any basis in the empirical world, beyond the musings of a few dreamers discussing things they haven't researched. There is always what might be and what is.

If real world examples don't exist, whatever it is you are discussing, it doesn't exist in the real world. I kind of feel like this whole discussion of SR ignores that maxim. You can only waste so much time speculating about how things work. And I have to say, some of what has been posted is science fiction and should be labelled as such. For example SR slows down your burst rate. I get 8 FPS with SR on. What slows down, your burst rate is too slow an exposure or using continuous AF. Honestly, why do people waste so much time inventing reason why not to use SR?

What is it about SR that stops people from thinking they need to test it, to understand it?

Believe on one who can't provide solid test data, test everything.
I too burst macro, when doing flowers and what not, even refocusing as well, i might take 20 shots of one flower and find only a handful are actually focusing where I want it to be etc.
I didn't know that SR is disabled to the point you can't reenable it on a 2 sec timer :O

Again I'm not sure where the 'slow' is coming in, I've only ever meant improved accuracy/success of focusing. Does your K-1 never shoot shots that with AF.C enabled and a target is running towards you that when bursting, some are in focus and some not? I think the idea is that removing SR is one less hurdle for the K-1 to jump through and consequently it succeeds better in more of those shots being in focus than not? At least that's the impression I am getting from what I have read and other users report.
Even if this is the case, I think SR always on makes more sense as its 'insurance policy' covers you wider for a degree of shooting situations than the very specific few examples I have outlined above (which are still hazey as to whether any of that is even true..).


The only thing I can think of which partially explains some of this is that perhaps there is a benefit of having SR off that Pentax and other camera manufacturers are aware of, such benefits as improved battery life, improved focus ratio (under the right circumstances), improved sharpness, but that all those things stack up against the potential of the shots being shot being 'shakey/blurred' outweigh any reason to publically announce it or make these findings openly accessible. Basically they want as many users shooting with SR on as it produces more often the best pic possible. The only reason there is an off feature is when SR goes against the situation such as tripoding and 2 second timer/remote instances.
But yeh just cause I typed all that doesn't mean i believe any of it, just another Bruce brain fart. hehhehe

09-11-2017, 05:28 AM   #107
Pentaxian
bdery's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec city, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,297
QuoteOriginally posted by BruceBanner Quote
I am however a bit of an ex-audiophile
How can that be? You simply stopped caring?
09-11-2017, 05:44 AM   #108
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 30,199
QuoteOriginally posted by bdery Quote
How can that be? You simply stopped caring?
I bought a Yamaha tube amp in the early 70s because of it's extremely crisp high end and it's range to me, Sony amps sounded like mud. I hooked everything up a few years ago, put on the record that influenced my decision, and I couldn't hear the high end, at all. I knew the rhythm of the small symbol part and where it was supposed to be, but I could no longer hear it. My grandson can though.

IF he's like me, he just doesn't want to pay for something he's lost the ability to appreciate.

It's like some of with lenses. Some of us want top quality everything. Others only want to pay for what our eyes can resolve at a normal viewing distance in a size we are likely to print. What the image looks like blown up to 40"x60" and examined with a microscope doesn't matter, and that's what you do when you pixel peep. It's gotten out of hand.

Last edited by normhead; 09-11-2017 at 05:49 AM.
09-11-2017, 05:45 AM   #109
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
BruceBanner's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Blue Mountains, NSW, Australia
Posts: 2,486
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by bdery Quote
How can that be? You simply stopped caring?
Not so much, and not really an audiophile per se, I was just really into portable gear such as MP3 Players and IEMs etc. I did a few reviews that got over 80,000 views on certain DAPs (Digital Audio Players),


but I just felt that the direction most manufacturers were heading in wasn't to my liking, a bit too much of 'Emperors New Clothes' tbh.
I still delve in a little at headfi occasionally but I'm mostly satisfied with my current setup (Hidizs AP100 with PFE 232's), and then I got into photography and I'm spending more of my time learning this craft

04-03-2018, 09:43 PM - 1 Like   #110
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 105
Off when using tripod, otherwise always on. I learned back in 1977 (first 35mm film SLR) to have a steady hold, but why not use it.

If they give you a parachute, why not take it on the plane.

JB
04-06-2018, 11:04 AM   #111
Journeyman Cat Wrangler
Loyal Site Supporter
SSGGeezer's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Maine, U.S.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,172
Why would you want to make life more difficult? Use it unless it will hurt the image or is not allowed in settings. You paid for the development and addition of this feature to your camera, why not use it and get better images?

I have to agree with Norm and say, show me why it shouldn't be on when possible. Show me a negative that comes from using SR. I suspect that you cannot but say leave it off to be like a Canon shooter I talked to who only shot JPEG because post processing was cheating. All I could say to that was, "OK." while thinking WOW! His images could be amazing rather than very good with just a few minutes of work.
04-06-2018, 06:42 PM - 1 Like   #112
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
BruceBanner's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Blue Mountains, NSW, Australia
Posts: 2,486
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by SSGGeezer Quote
Why would you want to make life more difficult? Use it unless it will hurt the image or is not allowed in settings. You paid for the development and addition of this feature to your camera, why not use it and get better images?

I have to agree with Norm and say, show me why it shouldn't be on when possible. Show me a negative that comes from using SR. I suspect that you cannot but say leave it off to be like a Canon shooter I talked to who only shot JPEG because post processing was cheating. All I could say to that was, "OK." while thinking WOW! His images could be amazing rather than very good with just a few minutes of work.
Very competent shooter showing his use of when he applies SR and when he doesn't;



A theme starts to appear, shots with possible panning and high shutter speeds and its off. Maybe ask him why. I bet it's because panning and SR and not great pals, and even tho perhaps SR is supposed to now deal with panning movements... perhaps it's not always successful. Perhaps those shutter speeds do not derive any benefit and lastly perhaps there is a grain of truth to suggest that AF is improved with SR off.
04-06-2018, 07:10 PM   #113
Journeyman Cat Wrangler
Loyal Site Supporter
SSGGeezer's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Maine, U.S.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,172
QuoteOriginally posted by BruceBanner Quote
Very competent shooter showing his use of when he applies SR and when he doesn't;



A theme starts to appear, shots with possible panning and high shutter speeds and its off. Maybe ask him why. I bet it's because panning and SR and not great pals, and even tho perhaps SR is supposed to now deal with panning movements... perhaps it's not always successful. Perhaps those shutter speeds do not derive any benefit and lastly perhaps there is a grain of truth to suggest that AF is improved with SR off.
I can see that if I felt like setting up custom settings for my third wheel using less SR it would be OK but when I get out with my camera, I never know what I might end up shooting. Usually critters with BIF often but I never know so I leave it on and when I do Astro, I am using the 2 second delay so it is off then. My last BIF shot was literally as I turned on the camera to use the lens to scan, and some ducks flew by and I snapped twice and had two frames in focus but one at too slow of a shutter speed to keep. SR on and I had to pan since mallards are fast. If I think to try it, without, I may do so.

I did like the hint for shooting horse racing, I may do some of that this summer if the opportunity arises.

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!
article, bruce, burst, cadence, camera, charger, device, dog, focus, frame, frames, hand, image, k-3, lengths, mirror, olympus, olympus om-d e-m1, pentax, photography, plate, quality, question, rule, shot, stabilisation, vibrations
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How many is too many (how many is too few)? hooverfocus Photographic Industry and Professionals 14 04-05-2017 02:38 PM
Olympus: Earth’s Rotation Limits Image Stabilization to 6.5 Stops Max interested_observer Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 10 09-28-2016 08:58 AM
Lens Stabilization VS Camera Stabilization philbaum Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 17 10-14-2015 12:38 PM
[K7]When absolutly NOT to use Image Stabilization? Ivo_Spohr Pentax DSLR Discussion 27 09-10-2010 12:49 AM
In-body stabilization + lens stabilization ntx Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 14 02-24-2009 05:24 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:48 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