Hmm....in body SR wasnt a good thing?

Simen1 · 04-12-2016, 06:52 AM

Originally posted by Gimbal

If you do the same with a K-5 you will see that the sensor doesn’t roll at all.

You are right. I can't see any roll movement that way, and I can't hear any difference in noise from the SR system when having the horizon correction on or off. Yes, the myth should be tested!

Turbofrog · 04-14-2016, 03:05 PM

My personal thinking is that given that Fuji doesn't have any IBIS implementation to speak of, and the increased success and popularity of IBIS in their competitors (primarily Olympus, Sony, and Panasonic, but Fuji and Pentax butt heads in terms of market niche fairly directly, as well), he needed to give technical-sounding reasons for why IBIS would be a bad idea for Fuji. At least plausible sounding explanations, anyway.

I think the relationship between the lens mount size and the flange distance is also important. The E-mount is small, but has no hope of telecentricity with many lenses due to the short flange distance and large sensor unless they jump through optical hoops to arrive there. With DSLRs and larger flange mounts obligated by the mirror box, they're forced to design lenses more telecentrically anyway, since many FLs will be shorter than the flange distance and require retrofocal designs. So I don't think the same size lens mount has as big an impact on Pentax lens designs as on Sony (or Fuji).

HoustonBob · 04-27-2016, 05:05 PM

It doesn't matter whether you move the sensor (as in body IS does) or move the image on the sensor (as in lens stabilization does) you get the same amount of vignetting from the same size image circle. Nikon and Canon use in lens stabilization because - that way - they get to sell you a new stabilizer every time you buy a new lens. It also gives them an upgrade path from their sharp but unstabilized lenses.

Nicolas06 · 05-01-2016, 06:45 AM

I agree, I fail to see how in lens share reduction would be any different. it still shift the image projection and if the rear element is too narrow, the light might be obstructed anyway.

The thing is, you can always add in lens SR on an in body SR system without any issue. Back in time the sigma lens had that on Pentax and I think some brand actually combine in body SR and in lens SR. So would you need a special design for a special lens, you can, but you don't have to. At worst you just need a firmware update so the camera can disable in body SR when a lens tagged as with in lens SR is detected.

At best I would guess that a perfectly synchronized system would be able to give even better performance and maybe gain you 1 or 2 stop more.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
In body sr question	Another dyemention	Pentax K-30 & K-50	26	05-18-2014 11:35 AM
A good thing to know about shooting in public...	Bcrary3	Photographic Industry and Professionals	2	07-22-2013 07:07 AM
In-Body SR vs. In-Lens SR Pros and Cons?	uchinakuri	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	32	09-23-2010 09:42 PM
Somtimes coming in 2nd is a good thing	daacon	General Talk	48	12-17-2009 04:24 PM
Hmm...What's a good lens for fashion photography?	fashionista	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	03-14-2008 07:27 PM

04-12-2016, 06:52 AM	#91
Simen1 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Tromsø, Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 1,031	Originally posted by Gimbal If you do the same with a K-5 you will see that the sensor doesn’t roll at all. You are right. I can't see any roll movement that way, and I can't hear any difference in noise from the SR system when having the horizon correction on or off. Yes, the myth should be tested!

04-14-2016, 03:05 PM	#92
Turbofrog New Member Join Date: Apr 2016 Posts: 5	My personal thinking is that given that Fuji doesn't have any IBIS implementation to speak of, and the increased success and popularity of IBIS in their competitors (primarily Olympus, Sony, and Panasonic, but Fuji and Pentax butt heads in terms of market niche fairly directly, as well), he needed to give technical-sounding reasons for why IBIS would be a bad idea for Fuji. At least plausible sounding explanations, anyway. I think the relationship between the lens mount size and the flange distance is also important. The E-mount is small, but has no hope of telecentricity with many lenses due to the short flange distance and large sensor unless they jump through optical hoops to arrive there. With DSLRs and larger flange mounts obligated by the mirror box, they're forced to design lenses more telecentrically anyway, since many FLs will be shorter than the flange distance and require retrofocal designs. So I don't think the same size lens mount has as big an impact on Pentax lens designs as on Sony (or Fuji).

04-27-2016, 05:05 PM	#93
HoustonBob Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Houston TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 265	It doesn't matter whether you move the sensor (as in body IS does) or move the image on the sensor (as in lens stabilization does) you get the same amount of vignetting from the same size image circle. Nikon and Canon use in lens stabilization because - that way - they get to sell you a new stabilizer every time you buy a new lens. It also gives them an upgrade path from their sharp but unstabilized lenses.

05-01-2016, 06:45 AM	#94
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	I agree, I fail to see how in lens share reduction would be any different. it still shift the image projection and if the rear element is too narrow, the light might be obstructed anyway. The thing is, you can always add in lens SR on an in body SR system without any issue. Back in time the sigma lens had that on Pentax and I think some brand actually combine in body SR and in lens SR. So would you need a special design for a special lens, you can, but you don't have to. At worst you just need a firmware update so the camera can disable in body SR when a lens tagged as with in lens SR is detected. At best I would guess that a perfectly synchronized system would be able to give even better performance and maybe gain you 1 or 2 stop more.