Gotta Love That Shake Reduction

stevo · 05-08-2008, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by Geekybiker

paying a couple hundred more (plus size and weight) on EVERY lens doesn't sound like fun.

The Canon 300mm f4 IS lens is actually cheaper than the Pentax DA* 300mm f4.

ftpaddict · 05-08-2008, 03:47 AM

Yep that works for me all the time!
I get sharp photos taken at 0.4" sometimes.

falconeye · 05-08-2008, 04:05 AM

Originally posted by KrisK10D

But 1/6th

That's really cool

Why is everybody so easily excited?

blur-free, noise-free is a no-brainer for a web-sized image. The originals are probably more impressive.

But as I said over and over again, web-sized images cannot show that an original is good with regard to noise and blur.

My own experiments with a K20D with active SR show that at 50mm, original exposures show sufficient lack of blur at 1/8s and shorter (about 8 pixels blur region, but with mild blur intensity(*) only

)

(*) See my attachments, a representative example :
- subject at web resolution (full image at this magnification would have been 700px wide)
- subject at 100% crop
- subject digitally corrected for 8px wide motion-blur afterwards

Blur w/o SR is equally distributed within the blur region (and can be corrected). The blur is strongly visible. Blur with SR is smaller and more mild (more centered around the correct location) but heavier to correct for. The blur is weakly visible.

sir_bazz · 05-08-2008, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by falconeye

Why is everybody so easily excited?

blur-free, noise-free is a no-brainer for a web-sized image. The originals are probably more impressive.

I agree with what your saying but for many people, web sized images is the intended output. That makes it exciting !

bazz.

APEHAUS · 05-12-2008, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by sir_bazz

I agree with what your saying but for many people, web sized images is the intended output. That makes it exciting !

bazz.

Okay I'm tempted to post the 2400x3600 image, and while it's not the sharpest of images, I think I wouldn't have done any better with a tripod, especially since focusing with almost no light is a complete pain.

Geekybiker · 05-13-2008, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by stevo

The Canon 300mm f4 IS lens is actually cheaper than the Pentax DA* 300mm f4.

So? Its not the same lens. Compare it vs the Canon 300 f4 non-IS (though I'm not entirely sure they make one) The point being that every lens from the same maker will cost more with IS in lens.

mickeyobe · 05-14-2008, 06:26 AM

I have the K100D.
I am not at all sure that the shake reduction is working.
Is there a way to determine whether or not it is operating?

ftpaddict · 05-14-2008, 06:34 AM

Originally posted by mickeyobe

I have the K100D.
I am not at all sure that the shake reduction is working.
Is there a way to determine whether or not it is operating?

A special symbol lights up inside the viewfinder when it turns on. It takes about 0.5 seconds from the moment you depress the shutter button halfway.

deudeu · 05-14-2008, 07:32 PM

Little question here:

What did you do for post processing. I mean where is the noise in the first picture?
My camera can't do this! It's supposed to be the same as yours but i never go in the ISO1600 territory. This is a scary place way to noisy.

I would love to know what you did in PP!

APEHAUS · 05-14-2008, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by deudeu

Little question here:

What did you do for post processing. I mean where is the noise in the first picture?
My camera can't do this! It's supposed to be the same as yours but i never go in the ISO1600 territory. This is a scary place way to noisy.

I would love to know what you did in PP!

I opened it in Adobe Camera Raw, made some adjustments to the Exposure (from 0.00 to -1.20), Shadows (from 5 to 12), and Contrast (from +25 to 0).

That's about it.

Here's the image, from RAW to JPEG, no changes made:

Here's a link for the full-size image, and yes, there is some noise

Lance B · 05-14-2008, 11:43 PM

Very impressive indeed, APEHAUS!!

APEHAUS · 05-15-2008, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by Lance B

Very impressive indeed, APEHAUS!!

We have good tools to work with!

mickeyobe · 05-19-2008, 06:29 AM

ftpaddict,

Thank you very much.
It does make a difference.

Mickey

P.S.
My grandparents came to Canada from Bucharest in 1902.

ftpaddict · 05-19-2008, 06:44 AM

Originally posted by mickeyobe

ftpaddict,

Thank you very much.
It does make a difference.

Mickey

P.S.
My grandparents came to Canada from Bucharest in 1902.

Haha, cool.

You're better off over there.

05-08-2008, 04:05 AM	#18
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by KrisK10D But 1/6th That's really cool Why is everybody so easily excited? blur-free, noise-free is a no-brainer for a web-sized image. The originals are probably more impressive. But as I said over and over again, web-sized images cannot show that an original is good with regard to noise and blur. My own experiments with a K20D with active SR show that at 50mm, original exposures show sufficient lack of blur at 1/8s and shorter (about 8 pixels blur region, but with mild blur intensity() only ) () See my attachments, a representative example : - subject at web resolution (full image at this magnification would have been 700px wide) - subject at 100% crop - subject digitally corrected for 8px wide motion-blur afterwards Blur w/o SR is equally distributed within the blur region (and can be corrected). The blur is strongly visible. Blur with SR is smaller and more mild (more centered around the correct location) but heavier to correct for. The blur is weakly visible. Last edited by falconeye; 06-15-2011 at 05:27 AM.

05-14-2008, 06:26 AM	#22
mickeyobe Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,759	Shake Reduction??? I have the K100D. I am not at all sure that the shake reduction is working. Is there a way to determine whether or not it is operating?

05-14-2008, 10:19 PM	#25
APEHAUS Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Whittier, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 93 Original Poster	Originally posted by deudeu Little question here: What did you do for post processing. I mean where is the noise in the first picture? My camera can't do this! It's supposed to be the same as yours but i never go in the ISO1600 territory. This is a scary place way to noisy. I would love to know what you did in PP! I opened it in Adobe Camera Raw, made some adjustments to the Exposure (from 0.00 to -1.20), Shadows (from 5 to 12), and Contrast (from +25 to 0). That's about it. Here's the image, from RAW to JPEG, no changes made: Here's a link for the full-size image, and yes, there is some noise Last edited by APEHAUS; 05-14-2008 at 10:33 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Gotta love Ford	graphicgr8s	General Talk	18	07-27-2010 10:37 AM
Gotta Love Jetlag ;)	K McCall	Post Your Photos!	16	06-27-2009 09:37 PM
Gotta love weathersealing!	yeedub	Pentax DSLR Discussion	16	02-05-2009 01:23 AM
You gotta love Kookaburra's	Rockdoctor	Post Your Photos!	17	01-13-2009 12:23 PM
Gotta love Orange!!!!	mtnbearhug	Post Your Photos!	11	09-06-2008 09:05 AM

05-08-2008, 02:19 AM	#16
stevo Junior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: UK Posts: 42	Originally posted by Geekybiker paying a couple hundred more (plus size and weight) on EVERY lens doesn't sound like fun. The Canon 300mm f4 IS lens is actually cheaper than the Pentax DA* 300mm f4.

05-08-2008, 03:47 AM	#17
ftpaddict Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Yurp Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,666	Yep that works for me all the time! I get sharp photos taken at 0.4" sometimes.

05-08-2008, 04:28 AM	#19
sir_bazz Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 184	Originally posted by falconeye Why is everybody so easily excited? blur-free, noise-free is a no-brainer for a web-sized image. The originals are probably more impressive. I agree with what your saying but for many people, web sized images is the intended output. That makes it exciting ! bazz.

05-12-2008, 11:19 PM	#20
APEHAUS Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Whittier, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 93 Original Poster	Originally posted by sir_bazz I agree with what your saying but for many people, web sized images is the intended output. That makes it exciting ! bazz. Okay I'm tempted to post the 2400x3600 image, and while it's not the sharpest of images, I think I wouldn't have done any better with a tripod, especially since focusing with almost no light is a complete pain.

05-13-2008, 11:53 AM	#21
Geekybiker Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Chicagoland Posts: 337	Originally posted by stevo The Canon 300mm f4 IS lens is actually cheaper than the Pentax DA* 300mm f4. So? Its not the same lens. Compare it vs the Canon 300 f4 non-IS (though I'm not entirely sure they make one) The point being that every lens from the same maker will cost more with IS in lens.

05-14-2008, 06:34 AM	#23
ftpaddict Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Yurp Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,666	Originally posted by mickeyobe I have the K100D. I am not at all sure that the shake reduction is working. Is there a way to determine whether or not it is operating? A special symbol lights up inside the viewfinder when it turns on. It takes about 0.5 seconds from the moment you depress the shutter button halfway.

05-14-2008, 07:32 PM	#24
deudeu Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Paris Posts: 222	Little question here: What did you do for post processing. I mean where is the noise in the first picture? My camera can't do this! It's supposed to be the same as yours but i never go in the ISO1600 territory. This is a scary place way to noisy. I would love to know what you did in PP!

05-14-2008, 11:43 PM	#26
Lance B Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 593	Very impressive indeed, APEHAUS!!

05-15-2008, 07:49 AM	#27
APEHAUS Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Whittier, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 93 Original Poster	Originally posted by Lance B Very impressive indeed, APEHAUS!! We have good tools to work with!

05-19-2008, 06:29 AM	#28
mickeyobe Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,759	ftpaddict, Thank you very much. It does make a difference. Mickey P.S. My grandparents came to Canada from Bucharest in 1902.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-19-2008, 06:44 AM	#29
ftpaddict Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Yurp Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,666	Originally posted by mickeyobe ftpaddict, Thank you very much. It does make a difference. Mickey P.S. My grandparents came to Canada from Bucharest in 1902. Haha, cool. You're better off over there.