[Andrew Goodall]

Hi, here is my first question since joining the group. I have recently purchased the Pentax K-3ii which claims to have an inbuilt four-stop image stabiliser. For my wildlife photography I use a Sigma 150-500mm which also has very good image stabilisation. I wonder if any members have knowledge/opinions on whether I can use both at the same time or if I should always switch off one when using the other?

[stevebrot]

Welcome to the Pentax Forums!

Conventional wisdom is that the internal SR works very well at shorter focal lengths and less well as the lens gets longer. I don't own your lens, but my understanding is that you will get better results from the lens IS and that you should not use both IS and SR together.


Steve

[rawr]

Best to turn one off. They kind of compete.

If anything, you will save a bit of battery power by doing so.

[Cthulhugan]

Never use both together, they will fight each other. I prefer to use the in-lens stabilization in my 150-500 (camera is the original K-3), as it stabilizes the viewfinder image.

[Andrew Goodall]

Welcome to the Pentax Forums!

Conventional wisdom is that the internal SR works very well at shorter focal lengths and less well as the lens gets longer. I don't own your lens, but my understanding is that you will get better results from the lens IS and that you should not use both IS and SR together.


Steve

Thanks Steve, very helpful. And possibly confirming what I already suspected as I have so far only used the camera's internal stabiliser with landscape shots.

---------- Post added 01-27-16 at 08:10 PM ----------

Best to turn one off. They kind of compete.

If anything, you will save a bit of battery power by doing so.

Thanks for the advice, every new bit of info adds to the mix.

---------- Post added 01-27-16 at 08:13 PM ----------

Never use both together, they will fight each other. I prefer to use the in-lens stabilization in my 150-500 (camera is the original K-3), as it stabilizes the viewfinder image.

Thank you, great to hear from someone who has used the lens. I have never been a big believer in IS anyway, but the Sigma lens system has such noticeable benefits I have come to rely on it. So I will keep doing things the way I have been. Cheers!

[Edgar_in_Indy]

I know it's tempting, but please, please do not attempt to use the lens OS and the body IS at the same time. There is a small, but distinct, possibility that you will create a localized distortion of the space-time continuum. (Don't ask me how I know!)

[Andrew Goodall]

I know it's tempting, but please, please do not attempt to use the lens OS and the body IS at the same time. There is a small, but distinct, possibility that you will create a localized distortion of the space-time continuum. (Don't ask me how I know!)

Hmmm...good advice and something I had not considered. It would be a shame to tear apart the fabric of space and time unless it is a really, really good photo opportunity.

[BrianR]

There was a video from a few years back of an Olympus camera that tested the various combos of in-lens and in-body shake reduction. They used Live View to show the effect of each. Both on was about as bad as both off. For the life of me I've never been able to find the video again. I now suspect it was Edgar's video from another timeline and that turning both on at the same time caused it to pop out of existence and the video, along with a chunk of stray code from youtube, carries out its existence entirely in my head.

[Andrew Goodall]

Thank you to everyone who has replied so far and everyone who may reply in the future. I can't promise I will reply to every comment but they are all appreciated. And pretty much confirming what I already thought to be the case. I must say I am impressed by the response, already pleased to be a part of this group. Thanks again.

[beachgardener]

one way to know is to do some testing of all 3 and report your findings here

[rawr]

Interestingly, some companies - eg Sony with some of their newer bodies - have been able to integrate in-lens stabilisation with in-body stabilisation, so that one system is able to automatically 'hand-off' to the other stabilisation system under some circumstances.

Eg when some E-mount optically stabilised lenses are mounted on the A7II, the lens will handle pitch and yaw stabilisation, but leave roll and X/Y movement handling to the camera. Otherwise, for non-stabilised lenses, the camera body just handles everything.



I guess the Sony approach may yield some advantages, but if you already have two systems of stabilisation, it seems a simple enough option to just manually choose what suits your needs best.

[Andrew Goodall]

one way to know is to do some testing of all 3 and report your findings here

I think perhaps you overestimate my attention span. But if I ever get that far I will be sure and do so.

[zapp]

In the future we can expect that lens stabilization will work together with sensor stabilization. Olympus just presented a stabilzed 300mm lens that pushes total stabilization including camera's stabilization to something like 7 f-stops. Both systems need to cooperate, but I assume that even for Pentax we will see lens stabilization for long telephoto lenses in the future while sensor stabilzation is already there.
Lens stabilization makes a lot of sense for long lenses as not only the viewfinder image is less shaky, but also AF and metering are less influenced by camera shake.

[BrianR]

Interestingly, some companies - eg Sony with some of their newer bodies - have been able to integrate in-lens stabilisation with in-body stabilisation, so that one system is able to automatically 'hand-off' to the other stabilisation system under some circumstances.

I hadn't heard about this integration, that's great. There was never a reason that they couldn't work together intelligently if they were designed to get along and not fight. It will be interesting to see if the manufacturers currently relying on one version start adding both to the mix.