Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-25-2013, 09:05 PM   #46
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 360
QuoteOriginally posted by carrrlangas Quote
Did you even read the whole thread?
most of the time no, and in this case definitely no.

07-26-2013, 07:02 AM   #47
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 198
Original Poster
Well, the poster in the Facebook group never responded to my post discussing in-body image stabilization on Pentax cameras. That is fine, I was able to provide information about in-body stabilization that hopefully presented a fairer view of that topic for the readers. Even more importantly, I got to learn something new.
07-26-2013, 07:21 AM   #48
Pentaxian
JinDesu's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,626
As long as someone learns, we all win!
07-27-2013, 08:20 AM   #49
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Detroit MI, USA
Posts: 503
QuoteOriginally posted by Kenntak Quote
I am involved in a photography author’s Facebook group. One issue that has come up is image stabilization. I first had to correct the members’ impressions that only Olympus and maybe Sony have image stabilization built into the camera body—Pentax of course has it also. After that, one of the photography experts stated that image stabilization built into the lens is much better, and that Canon and Nikon made the right choice in having it done that way. I commented that the image stabilization works great in the Pentax camera bodies. It is always there--I don’t have to make sure the lens has it. He then posted a long commentary on that matter.

I am a newbie, and I would like to respond simply for the purpose of ensuring that the facts are fairly presented with regard to Pentax. I am not trying to win any debates, just trying to correct any possible misconceptions. The poster may be perfectly right for all I know.

Anyway, the poster stated that basic physics makes it difficult, if not impossible, for stabilization to be more effective at the sensor. The movements of the sensor have to be much larger, while the movements of the lens mechanisms are measured in tiny fractions of a millimeter, and for sensor-based stabilization to be effective it has to be moved up to millimeters at a time. An example is a laser pointer and paper, where it is much easier to keep the laser pointer still than it is to try to move the target around to keep the pointer centered.

Image stabilization in the body also suffers from the inability to know exactly how the lens is zoomed and focused, which means that its correction is inherently somewhat inexact. Every lens would have to be accurately profiled and that data would have to be either stored in the camera or lens for truly accurate correction.

The advantage that sensor-based stabilization has is that if you have multiple lenses it is cheaper, as you only have one stabilization mechanism to deal with. You buy the mechanism once, and it works with all of your lenses.

The reason that Canon and Nikon have elected to do correction in the lenses is that it is easier to do and can be more responsive. Current IS/VR technologies are giving about four stops of improvement, which is far more than what sensor-based correction can do, especially on long lenses.

It is not that sensor-based stabilization is ineffective, but it is inherently much more difficult to pull off well, and it has a lot of limitations, especially as you start using telephoto lenses. It was invented for cost savings, not because it is a better way of doing it.
OS may have a performance advantage; same with the Pentax SR system. I would like to clear one thing up. The Pentax system is many times faster than needed. The CPU can calculate thousands of times a second (really millions) the proper positioning of the sensor platter.

This is how fast it is. The sensor platter sits on the bottom of the camera until you fully press the shutter button, not just when you see the shaky hand. The shaky hand just means the CPU has done enough calculations that you can confidently press the shutter button fully and have full Shake Reduction Performance. But just think in that split second the sensor platter jumps up into a countering (shake) position before the shutter opens. That is the time between you fully depress the shutter button and the shutter starts to open. Thats fast! So we know for a fact its way too fast to even need to move close to position before depressing the shutter button. The lowish frequency movements are just not a challenge for a PWM, CPU driven motor system. The system does have a filter to remove really low fz. Also it has three gyros to gather movement data versus two for most OS system. The SR system in body when you press the shutter button and the body moves off axis a degree or two the sensor can move to compensate in a rotational movement; all three X,Y, Z positions.

I have never really cared about the argument of either system as well. But I do now. The reason is Klaus of Photozone has and still reports that OS lens seem much more prone to manufacturing lens alignment problems. This is only logical. Now you have more lens element(s) to center and a moving element(s) at that; that's not easy! To make it perfectly perpendicular within the lens barrel. His testing evidence shows this does occur, and its not rare.

This is why I am glad Sigma is so foward looking these days. Notice the decline in IQ with the second gen 17-70mm (and many lens) and now the back to the same high or higher performance versus the original 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 macro (perhaps better OS system, not just glass!). Sigma removes the OS for Pentax dSLRs, a good thing! If OS was good for all, they would not do so. But other than telephoto, body based SR, overall it seems has shown the best real world benefits, for most people with in body SR (no lens problems).

Lastly, ever see a 50mm f/1.2 with SR. How about a Sigma 10-20mm, 8-16mm, or canon 10-22mm. Does not happen. There seems to be a technical limitation that prevents APS UWA lens from having OS. So only body based systems enjoy Shake Reduction with UWA lens such as the Sigma 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6. This lets that lens shoot in light lower than a 50mm f/1.2 prime. Do the math. 8mm APS you want 1/12 or 1/16 for good results. With SR you can use 1/8 with no issue and even lower with no problems. Bodies with no built in SR system lose out on this.

Telephoto, well with my K20D it is not steady in the OVF; and I liked the idea of having some lens with OS. But not now after reading of Klaus many findings, and with my K5. Just turn on live-view and now I have a stabilized screen. I am going to say in time all cameras will have built in SR and that Canon and Nikon made a mistake by putting OS in each and every lens (paying for it over and over; more things to break) in time it will show.

Written in a fun kind spirit. Its a firm IMO but may not be reality . What I am saying is don't be offended.


Last edited by jamesm007; 07-29-2013 at 04:52 AM. Reason: Grammar, Spelling
07-27-2013, 11:20 AM   #50
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,107
There is also a slightly different viewpoint that can be made in terms of in body stabilization and optical stabilization, in particular as implemented by Canon, Nikon and Pentax. I did a little survey (I did this a couple of years ago also). I just counted (from everyone's website, using the categorization that each vendor used) the Total Lenses, and Stabilized Lenses. I also, along the way, noted L glass for Canon and Limited/* glass for Pentax. Also, for Canon, not all L lenses are stabilized, hence the IS&L count.

Canon
Category - Total - L - IS - IS&L
Ultra Wide Zoom - 4 - 3 - 0 - 0
Standard Zoom - 11 - 1 - 10 - 1
Telephoto Zoom - 12 - 7 - 8 - 5
Wide Angle - 8 - 2 - 0 - 0
Standard / Medium Zoom - 7 - 2 - 0 - 0
Telephoto - 5 - 4 - 5 - 3
Super Telephoto - 4 - 3 - 3 - 2
Macro - 7 - 0 - 1 - 0
_______________________________
Total Lenses - 58
L Lenses - 23
IS Lenses - 29
Both IS & L Lenses - 11


Nikon
Category - Total - VR
Travel/Landscape - 30 - 12
People/Events - 22 - 9
Sports/Action - 30 - 12
Macro - 9 - 1
Fisheye - 2 - 0
Manual Focus - 2 - 0
_______________________________
Total Lenses - 95
VR Lenses - 35


Pentax
_______________________________
Total Lenses - 34
Limited Lenses - 9
* Lenses - 6
Limited & * Lenses - 15
IBS Lenses - 34

So, what does this indicate. When comparing apples to apples in terms of stabilied lenses,
  • Canon - 29
  • Nikon - 35
  • Pentax - 34
When we hear that both Canon and Nikon's lens offering far exceed Pentax, in actual body count that is true, in terms of stabilized lenses, its not.

When looking at the highest quality lenses, Canon's L vs. Pentax's Limited and *, it is also reasonably close.
  • Canon L Lenses - 23
  • Pentax Limited/* Lenses - 15

When I was looking to get back into photography, when digital was reasonably young, I made a selection - Pentax. I liked the in-body stabilization approach. Was it the absolutely the best - it has its merits, and it also has its detriments. It was a technical approach and a solution that I made choice. It was reasonable. Am I going to change - its a hobby, and I am not good enough to really make a difference. Nor am I a professional where it will make a difference to my customers or income level. Will changing anything make me more than what I am (other than practice) - nope. So it is what it is.
_________
PS - I tried to keep it to just reasonably simple counts. So, if I ran out of fingers and toes for totals, I apologize. I think the numbers are reasonably accurate.


Last edited by interested_observer; 07-27-2013 at 11:31 AM.
07-27-2013, 03:24 PM   #51
Veteran Member
NitroDC's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 342
I'd prefer in-lens stabilization because in-body looks awful on video (jello everywhere). I'm totally happy with in-body for photos though. No complaints there, it definitely does not disappoint.

Maybe they could implement in-lens stabilization in the DA* series?
07-27-2013, 03:37 PM   #52
Pentaxian
carrrlangas's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Joensuu (Finland)
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,750
QuoteOriginally posted by clockwork247 Quote
most of the time no, and in this case definitely no.
Hope not!
I donīt care about video on my DSLR at all
07-27-2013, 10:48 PM   #53
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 698
QuoteOriginally posted by NitroDC Quote
I'd prefer in-lens stabilization because in-body looks awful on video (jello everywhere). I'm totally happy with in-body for photos though. No complaints there, it definitely does not disappoint.

Maybe they could implement in-lens stabilization in the DA* series?
Using in body or in-lens stabilisation has no bearing on the jello effect. The excessive jello effect seen on the K-30 is because it does not use the in-body stabilisation and instead of that uses a poorly implemented digital stabilisation. Apparently they do this because of the noise that the sensor movement would make.

I am hoping that in some future firmware release they will allow the SR to be enabled in video - there is no reason why they shouldn;t - it is already there (in live view) so all they need is an option in the menu to enable it.

07-27-2013, 10:54 PM   #54
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 698
QuoteOriginally posted by interested_observer Quote
There is also a slightly different viewpoint that can be made in terms of in body stabilization and optical stabilization, in particular as implemented by Canon, Nikon and Pentax. I did a little survey (I did this a couple of years ago also). I just counted (from everyone's website, using the categorization th
.......
........
_________
PS - I tried to keep it to just reasonably simple counts. So, if I ran out of fingers and toes for totals, I apologize. I think the numbers are reasonably accurate.

I think the numbers may be a bit off in the sense that you are only including the lenses made by each brand rather than the lenses that can be used by each brand of camera.

Apart from current lenses from Sigma, Tamron and others one can add any lens the can be fitted to a Pentax camera, including manual screw mount lenses, all of which are IBIS stabilised, (except for some specialised lenses such as fisheyes)
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!
camera, correction, dslr, image, lens, lenses, mechanism, pentax, photography, sensor-based, stabilization
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Image Stabilization with manual lenses and adapter CDW Pentax K-5 4 06-25-2013 07:33 AM
Image Stabilization, lens problem!? Zandroido Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 16 09-20-2012 09:58 AM
Lenses with image stabilization Spodeworld Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 16 08-30-2011 07:02 AM
Image Stabilization: Pentax K-X vs Nikon/Canon geekette Pentax DSLR Discussion 24 04-18-2011 01:20 PM
Image stabilization doesn't work in movie mode jeans Video and Pentax HDSLRs 2 12-15-2009 09:47 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:14 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