[Ratmagiclady]

Well, I dunno, Winder, there's been a lot of actually controlled-testing, (especially by those trying to prove OS is somehow a better deal,) and they're generally pretty equivalent.

In practice, it's a lot easier to account for a stop of variation with the human element than any other, ...I can acheive some pretty ridiculous feats of handholding with my K20d, and in part that's cause the camera just plain fits me so well, I'm sure. (And, Hec, I'm used to night-shooting with old Canons, some of those practically have recoil. My chief concern is *subject motion.* )

I wouldn't be surprised the E-3's good, though: pro body with a smaller sensor to move around? Sure.

Like I said, though, with the lenses I want to use, it's not a choice between body stabilization and paying for OS lenses, it'd be a choice between 'stabilized or not stabilized at all.'

[jstevewhite]

Well, I dunno, Winder, there's been a lot of actually controlled-testing, (especially by those trying to prove OS is somehow a better deal,) and they're generally pretty equivalent.

In practice, it's a lot easier to account for a stop of variation with the human element than any other, ...I can acheive some pretty ridiculous feats of handholding with my K20d, and in part that's cause the camera just plain fits me so well, I'm sure. (And, Hec, I'm used to night-shooting with old Canons, some of those practically have recoil. My chief concern is *subject motion.* )

I wouldn't be surprised the E-3's good, though: pro body with a smaller sensor to move around? Sure.

Like I said, though, with the lenses I want to use, it's not a choice between body stabilization and paying for OS lenses, it'd be a choice between 'stabilized or not stabilized at all.'

Yeah, I used to use Canon gear myself. My old EF (still in the cabinet with my T90) took many shots at 1/8 and sometimes even 1/4... I found that I could shoot my 35mm f2 @ 1/8 with about a 40% success rate, and at 1/4 with about a 10% success rate - which was still much faster and easier than toting a tripod! The SR of the K20D (and now K-5) really bumped those success rates.

[jstevewhite]

From what I have read in articles are that the two competing technologies are pretty much equal in terms of performance. However, both have their respective benefits and cons. Price vs limitations. Personally I like having in body over lens based as price is lower and it works on all lenses. In addition with Sigma now releasing lens stabilization it should really give in body more incentive as you can swap which conditions you want to use which technology.

Yeah, you hit the big win for Sensor-based SR - it works with "every" lens. Even old screw-mount ones, and M series, and K series... well, you get the point.

[Lowell Goudge]

this has been posted before, but deserves a post here since it is so directly related to the argument.

this is a 100% crrop out of a larger image.

Shot using my K7 and SMC 300mmF4 plus SMC-F 1.7x AF TC at 1/40 of a second hand held, free standing (i.e. not leaning against anything.



here is the whole image



the entire issue of shake reduction is really quite simple. it is all about technique. It probably gives about 2-3 stops for in body correction, on average, but the problem is that everyone is diufferent, and unless you do a ton of tests using one person, and the same technique over and over, with some type of good determination of a sharp shot, then no one will ever agree on exactly how much in body stabilization can give.

My shot, for reference, is between 4 and 5 stops down from the "rule of thumb" for hand holding, considering 500mm Focal length and the crop factor of 1.5.

But I can also say that I usually can hold below the rule of thumb even without SR.

the biggest thing to note here is that this bird was bloody still, it had to be for me to get the image, because it does not matter what type of SR someone has if the object moves that's it

[Winder]

I looked at Sony A900 as an upgrade to my Canon 5D simply because of the in-body IS. I mainly shoot primes with the 85L & 135L being my most used. If I had confidence in the direction Sony was heading I would probably make the move.

Canon has no image stabilized options in the focal lengths that I use without going to a slower zoom, and that is just not going to happen. If I shot HD video I would probably go for the lens based OS, but I have no need.

For my applications in-body IS is the only real option. It does not matter if OS is better if there are no OS lenses in the focal lengths that I need.

[Lowell Goudge]

I looked at Sony A900 as an upgrade to my Canon 5D simply because of the in-body IS. I mainly shoot primes with the 85L & 135L being my most used. If I had confidence in the direction Sony was heading I would probably make the move.

Canon has no image stabilized options in the focal lengths that I use without going to a slower zoom, and that is just not going to happen. If I shot HD video I would probably go for the lens based OS, but I have no need.

For my applications in-body IS is the only real option. It does not matter if OS is better if there are no OS lenses in the focal lengths that I need.

this is the other side of the equation that no one talks about.

In lens OS has a cost, but the reason it is in some slow lenses is because it makes them easier to sell on the basis that OS helps without increasing ISO on the camera or by putting a lot of extra glass into a lens. Remember glass is expensive.

but if you are now looking for stabalized in body, and not happy with the uncertantity with Sony, you are always welcome back to pentax

[Winder]

this is the other side of the equation that no one talks about.

In lens OS has a cost, but the reason it is in some slow lenses is because it makes them easier to sell on the basis that OS helps without increasing ISO on the camera or by putting a lot of extra glass into a lens. Remember glass is expensive.

but if you are now looking for stabalized in body, and not happy with the uncertantity with Sony, you are always welcome back to pentax

Currently playing with a K-7 and a Sigma 50mm f/1.4. I am probably going to order a Sigma 85mm f/1.4 this month. If I decide to stay with Pentax I will pick up a K-5 this summer or fall. My Canon 5D (original) is well past 150K shutter actuations and the K-5 would be a worthy replacement. The 85L is a hard lens to replace. I'll keep my Canon glass and see what happens.

[Ratmagiclady]

Yeah, I used to use Canon gear myself. My old EF (still in the cabinet with my T90) took many shots at 1/8 and sometimes even 1/4... I found that I could shoot my 35mm f2 @ 1/8 with about a 40% success rate, and at 1/4 with about a 10% success rate - which was still much faster and easier than toting a tripod! The SR of the K20D (and now K-5) really bumped those success rates.

Hee. Still got and use some of my old stuff: if you ever do part with that, drop me a PM, not that I'm routinely in a major purchase place.

I think the T90 may in retrospect represent where I was last feeling OK with high-tech, but I'm kind of an F-1N/FTbn/A-series gal generally.

Never did get an 85/1.2, but it's kind of a dream lens of mine. (I use the 1.8 SSC and joke that if anyone superglued it on I might not notice for a couple weeks. ) And a 32/2, and a 50/1.2, mostly as-fast-as-obtainable glass cause I was an autofocus resister until about Yule of 2008. But I digress.

FD shooters are like Chevettes: few remain but those left ain't stopping now, I say. But I think Pentax picked up a lot of the flags Canon left behind when they went all electronic.


Still, SR seems to work.

This is a full half-second exposure I did with an FA 50mm on the ol' K20d I did when someone was doubting, over a couple beers, which happens to be up: pardon my Photobucket: I downsized badly, (but you can peek at a couple old Canons up there. Mostly I have used this account for photo forum show-and-tell, you see,)




I dunno, I think it'll do.

[jstevewhite]

I think the T90 may in retrospect represent where I was last feeling OK with high-tech, but I'm kind of an F-1N/FTbn/A-series gal generally.

Never did get an 85/1.2, but it's kind of a dream lens of mine. (I use the 1.8 SSC and joke that if anyone superglued it on I might not notice for a couple weeks. ) And a 32/2, and a 50/1.2, mostly as-fast-as-obtainable glass cause I was an autofocus resister until about Yule of 2008. But I digress.

FD shooters are like Chevettes: few remain but those left ain't stopping now, I say. But I think Pentax picked up a lot of the flags Canon left behind when they went all electronic.


Still, SR seems to work.

This is a full half-second exposure I did with an FA 50mm on the ol' K20d I did when someone was doubting, over a couple beers, which happens to be up: pardon my Photobucket: I downsized badly, (but you can peek at a couple old Canons up there. Mostly I have used this account for photo forum show-and-tell, you see,)


I dunno, I think it'll do.

I don't shoot film any more, but I do take out the FD gear once in a while and admire it. I've got an old 85 f1.8 (FD) that looks like it was dropped into a dirty camera bag with no cap, face down, and driven cross-country (several tiny, short scratches), but it's made me more money (back when I was a pro) than all my other lenses put together.

I thought the T90 was the best camera every made (and the T-50 close to the worst!), but there's something... satisfying about the EF or F1n, and they have those huge, gorgeous viewfinders.

Even when I was a Canon shooter, I admired the .. color and contrast of the Pentax gear. They were the closest of the Japanese machines to the Leitz/Zeiss/Schneider glass.

And yeah, that's a nice capture. The SR makes subject movement much more of a problem than camera movement!

[Ratmagiclady]

I don't shoot film any more, but I do take out the FD gear once in a while and admire it. I've got an old 85 f1.8 (FD) that looks like it was dropped into a dirty camera bag with no cap, face down, and driven cross-country (several tiny, short scratches), but it's made me more money (back when I was a pro) than all my other lenses put together.

I thought the T90 was the best camera every made (and the T-50 close to the worst!), but there's something... satisfying about the EF or F1n, and they have those huge, gorgeous viewfinders.

Even when I was a Canon shooter, I admired the .. color and contrast of the Pentax gear. They were the closest of the Japanese machines to the Leitz/Zeiss/Schneider glass.

And yeah, that's a nice capture. The SR makes subject movement much more of a problem than camera movement!

Thanks, there.

Yeah, my Pentax connection was the 6x7. Brutal in some ways trying to shoot weddings with em, but the old Taks just made me look so good, it was worth it.


There's a certain point of diminishing returns, here, too: five or six stops of SR wouldn't make the *world* slow down any. As it is, I've gotta watch out for eyelids.