[UncleVanya]

The numbers are in the reviews and are based on technical information from Ricoh Japan's Web site.

Edit: Not all reviews include the numbers. I am checking the Ricoh Web site's claims and am wondering it the numbers quoted here are from press materials.

It is important to note that those numbers are CIPA certified* using outside CIPA-approved outside laboratories. I don't know what the current situation is, but at one point the full CIPA requirements were available online. The make for an interesting read.

Now whether 4.5 stops of SR is enough to overcome 8 stops negative input from the user is another matter.


Steve

(...has no difficulty realizing the mentioned 3.5-stop advantage with my K-3...)

* CIPA requires members who make shake reduction claims to certify the performance.

Just to add to what Steve has said. IF I recall correctly the K-3 was measured (like those before it) with a Ricoh/Pentax method that was not an open standard. The switch to CIPA methodology came with the K-3II (again if I recall correctly) and there was some discussion as to the change - it was unclear in head to head testing if anything had actually been improved or the measurement standard was more lax than the proprietary method (which was perhaps more pragmatic? ) employed before. Some people claimed the K-3II performed the same, others claimed it was improved. The truth is it was hard enough to test that there was some debate. At least that is what I recall.

On a practical note - the K-3 does very very well for me. So does the Panasonic GX-7 and Olympus EM-1. When in doubt I brace myself, use good breathing and posture, and try to take the shot. The worst that happens is it isn't any good. Most of the time it works great. I wouldn't sweat the numbers particularly the older cameras numbers - since they may not be judged on the same standard.

[MikeyBugs95]

When one says X stops of shake reduction, just what does that mean and how does that relate to actually taking a photograph? I seen this said quite a bit and don't really know what it means.

Well, from my limited understanding, under ideal circumstances (partially meaning with the same lens used for testing at the same focal length), you could use a shutter speed that is X stops slower with shake reduction than you would be able to if you didn't have SR.

[MetalUndivided]

I think it depends a lot on the focal length you're using. From my observations, my K-70 with the PLM @ 300mm gives about 1.5-2 stops tops. I imagine it would do better at shorter focal lengths.

[Bruce Clark]

Well, from my limited understanding, under ideal circumstances (partially meaning with the same lens used for testing at the same focal length), you could use a shutter speed that is X stops slower with shake reduction than you would be able to if you didn't have SR.

That is my understanding too but it all a bit subjective. I was not aware of any scientific measurement of it.

[Rondec]

So, I think SR is most helpful in middle focal lengths. It allows me to hand hold about 1/6 second with a 50mm lens on the K-1 pretty consistently. Always can do it at 1/8 second. I see people post images hand held with longer exposures and while I can identify what the image is of, I often see signs of camera shake too. It isn't magic for sure and probably depends on how shaky the photographer is to start with.

Honestly, if you think you're going to need longer exposures just make the effort and carry a tripod. It's just going to give you better results.

(I know that there are plenty of places where a tripod is not OK)...

[Madaboutpix]

From the K-7 onwards, I've always regarded Shake Reduction as a mere extra layer of support - I even hesitate to use the word safety - with iffy hand-held shots. I always stay aware that it can't eliminate camera shake completely once I start pushing the envelope beyond the reciprocal rule, which itself is just a rule of thumb anyway. It is a feature that increases the likelihood of acceptably-sharp images within the margin of a few stops, particularly with wider focal lengths, as long as I apply a solid technique as the shaky human being behind the camera.

That said, it has given me images I absolutely cherish and which I could not have reasonably hoped to get any other way, many of them taken in dimly-lit cathedrals, castles, and museums. There will be misses, and the more you push it, the more of them, but technology has evolved over the years, and when it does work effectively, it can save the day. And I'm grateful that Pentax engineers have found a way of building it into the body, rather than having me pay extra for it as a special feature in lenses.

[MrB1]

It might be of interest to some that when a Pentax camera is in an auto or semi-auto mode (Av), whenever it can it applies a shutter speed that complies with the guideline (at least the reciprocal of the FF equivalent focal length), even when shake reduction is turned on.

Philip

[Lowell Goudge]

Let’s go back to basics.

The rule of thumb for shooting hand held in full frame was shutter speed = 1 / focal length

This gave a reasonable chance of having a sharp image where a point source would be a dot on an 8” x 10” print of .,01 inch in diameter

For full frame this still applies but in crop sensors you need to consider that magnification in the enlargement to print, is 1.5 x more, so you need to multiply the golden rule by 1.5. Or consider the focal length of 1.5 times it’s stated value.

But just like depth of field as we enlarge well beyond 8” x 10” today the discussion becomes relative to what you normally do in terms of enlargement to view.

We tend to enlarge much more today that when we shot film.

Also note SR also rewards good technique. I have shot at 1/40 hand held with a 500mm lens, On a cropped sensor body, and posted those results on the forum before

But that was me, not any of you, with a well braced but free standing pose. Technique is everything.

Edit note. Added reference link

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/6-pentax-dslr-discussion/70208-just-how-...reduction.html

[MossyRocks]

I don't really worry about the number of stops it provides and in general have though about it as what speed can I expect to get a non camera shake image from the camera at for a given lens. With my 300mm lens on my K-3 I can get one about 25% (a reasonable best guess) at 1/30s for an object that isn't moving. Once I get to about 1/100s with that lens it is basically 100% for a non moving object.

[bdery]

The original question is loaded. Stabilization varies so much with conditions, focal length, user technique and physique, etc.

[FozzFoster]

The original question is loaded. Stabilization varies so much with conditions, focal length, user technique and physique, etc.

I agree that my question was loaded in the sense that actualized SR may be dependent on the person and conditions, but I don't think it's an unreasonable question especially since Ricoh/Pentax reports the supposed SR stops for their cameras. They must be using a baseline and standardized test using similar conditions amongst cameras. I'm asking for these standardized reported values, not personal experiences.

[FozzFoster]

Just to add to what Steve has said. IF I recall correctly the K-3 was measured (like those before it) with a Ricoh/Pentax method that was not an open standard. The switch to CIPA methodology came with the K-3II (again if I recall correctly) and there was some discussion as to the change - it was unclear in head to head testing if anything had actually been improved or the measurement standard was more lax than the proprietary method (which was perhaps more pragmatic? ) employed before.

If the standard changed, we could still account for this and include the change in a chart.
For an example, I made this chart using dummy data:
(We could even plot multiple trend lines to account for Entry vs. Flagship cameras..)

[Ontarian50]

I do share some skepticism about the claimed number of stops (slower shutter speeds) one can hand hold at with "new improved" SR, VR, IS, IBIS, etc. etc.

I suppose some of it comes from the old chestnut of how slow a speed one can hand hold at anyway. I know I've taken a zillion shots at 1/30th when shooting black and white film for newspaper use back in the day. They usually looked decent enough for publication, but if someone asked for an 8x10 glossy copy, you could see where there was some camera movement softening things up.

What a lot of photographers don't realize that if there's some shake at 1/30th, it doesn't just disappear at 1/60th, there's just half as much. If you blow the image up bigger, or go pixel peeping on your 36mp camera, well... you'll see it. At 1/125th, there's half as much again. At some point camera shake drops to less movement than one pixel (or less than the lens ultimate resolution), so you could say there was no shake.

What struck me once was a test report done by either Popular Photography or Modern Photography once upon a time, and they found that using demanding ultra resolution methods, they could still detect camera shake at 1/1000th. A solid tripod and mirror lock up was the only cure.

That said, there's some pretty impressive stabilization possible these days. Some of the built-in optical stabilizers in some big telephotos do make it possible to shoot at around 1/60th hand held. Personally, with my own hand held stuff with normal focal lengths I try to keep with nothing slower than 1/15, because even if the camera is steady enough, objects and people out there move enough in 1/15 of a second to ruin a sharp shot anyway.

[stevebrot]

They must be using a baseline and standardized test using similar conditions amongst cameras. I'm asking for these standardized reported values, not personal experiences.

Google is our friend.

CIPA DC-011 Measurement and Description Method for Image Stabilization Performance of Digital Cameras: Home

Pentax Forums is our friend too...

What do they mean when they say Shake Reduction adds4 stops of performance? - PentaxForums.com

Effective stops of SR between Pentax bodies - PentaxForums.com

Yes...the truth is out there, hiding in plain sight.


Steve

[TwoUptons]

I’ve noticed on my K1 I get more noticeable camera shake than I expected with SR off and on. It has enough resolution to show shake that would have been undetectable otherwise.

On APS-C, I used 1/(focal length *1.5) for SR off, and I’ve kept the same rule for the K1. SR will get me better than that, of course, but it’s hard to quantify over a range of lenses and conditions...

But I’d say the K1 system is more effective than the one on my K-01 or K10...

-Eric