[Wheatfield]

Which is why I find it fascinating that several fo the know-it-all camera review sites are praising the innovation of several other makers for having 3-Axis in camera stabilization (!WOW!!). My response is, been benefiting from that technology for 10 years, why are they so late to the party and why don't these people praise Pentax as the forerunner of that approach?

Most people see the word Pentax and suffer brain death.

[photoptimist]

Which is why I find it fascinating that several fo the know-it-all camera review sites are praising the innovation of several other makers for having 3-Axis in camera stabilization (!WOW!!). My response is, been benefiting from that technology for 10 years, why are they so late to the party and why don't these people praise Pentax as the forerunner of that approach?

Most people hate admitting they were wrong so they refuse to admit facts into their minds that contradict cherished falsehoods.

[Merv-O]

Which is why I find it fascinating that several fo the know-it-all camera review sites are praising the innovation of several other makers for having 3-Axis in camera stabilization (!WOW!!). My response is, been benefiting from that technology for 10 years, why are they so late to the party and why don't these people praise Pentax as the forerunner of that approach?

Yes and the new KP and K-1 ii have 5 step stabilization....it's the Fake News DPR (amazon) phenomenon...

[reh321]

I always use the OS on the 150-500. Mainly for the stabilized viewfinder. I shoot with the lens directly attached to a monopod, no ball head, which is mainly used for resting. So most of my shots end up being hand held. Sometimes I will lug my tripod and gimbal around, in which case shake reduction is turned off anyway...A nice feature of Sigma's OS is that there are 2 modes, Mode 1 for normal shooting and Mode 2 for panning,

Any IS compensates for camera movement, but not for subject movement, so I'm not sure any IS is nearly as useful as a higher shutter speed is for longer lenses, because there is almost always motion at the subject end which become substantial after it has been magnified by the lens.

[clackers]

Any IS compensates for camera movement, but not for subject movement, so I'm not sure any IS is nearly as useful as a higher shutter speed is for longer lenses, because there is almost always motion at the subject end which become substantial after it has been magnified by the lens.

Sure, if you're shooting sports on a sunny day, if you can get your shutter speed over 1/1000s by putting up ISO to 400 or 800 you won't need IS.

But we have to deal with all kinds of conditions, of course.

[joergens.mi]

Any IS compensates for camera movement, but not for subject movement, so I'm not sure any IS is nearly as useful as a higher shutter speed is for longer lenses, because there is almost always motion at the subject end which become substantial after it has been magnified by the lens.

A fast shutter speed is good, but it is better to have that and your movements compensated - simply error reduction.

I like high shutter speeds for the objects and a 5 Axis IS do compensate shaking including rotation - a thing an OIS can't do.
I also like that all my optics - even my 30 year old ones - are compensated.
And I like that I have only to pay one time for the stabilisation and not for every optics.
And when there is an upfdate of the shake reduction all optics will have the better compensation, not only the ones I have to buy new

[photoptimist]

Two other IBIS-only features are:
1) astrotracer
2) horizon leveling

Additionally, I'm skeptical that OIS has the required pixel-level accurate control needed for pixelshift. (If it did, I would have expected Nikon or Canon to release OIS-with-pixel-shift lenses or firmware to add another competitive feature.)

[Merv-O]

Any IS compensates for camera movement, but not for subject movement, so I'm not sure any IS is nearly as useful as a higher shutter speed is for longer lenses, because there is almost always motion at the subject end which become substantial after it has been magnified by the lens.

REH: which is exactly why the extended ISO of the K-1/ii and KP coupled with the faster AF and IS makes for a great camera...I hope RICOH continues to support PENTAX properly even as the DSLR market continues to decline...

[pentax360]

What matters to me, is I can't afford lenses with in lens stabilization.
But every lens I use with my Pentax benefits from in body IS.

[joergens.mi]

Two other IBIS-only features are:
1) astrotracer
2) horizon leveling

Additionally, I'm skeptical that OIS has the required pixel-level accurate control needed for pixelshift. (If it did, I would have expected Nikon or Canon to release OIS-with-pixel-shift lenses or firmware to add another competitive feature.)

I can't believe that OIS is capable of PSR. I don't believe that there is a possivility of 1 pixel accuracy, every optics must have knowlwedge of the sensor and pixelsize

[beholder3]

Two other IBIS-only features are:
1) astrotracer
2) horizon leveling

Additionally, I'm skeptical that OIS has the required pixel-level accurate control needed for pixelshift. (If it did, I would have expected Nikon or Canon to release OIS-with-pixel-shift lenses or firmware to add another competitive feature.)

the little shift feature

the moire fighting feature

---------- Post added 1st Jan 2019 at 22:24 ----------

What matters to me, is I can't afford lenses with in lens stabilization.
But every lens I use with my Pentax benefits from in body IS.

And it is easy to add ibis to fast f1.4 or even 1.2 lenses.

currently there is only a single 1.4 lens out there with ilis.

[traderdrew]

This article Why we haven't taken a stance on in-body stabilization vs OIS - and why that has changed: Digital Photography Review suggests that in-body stabilisation is better at close-up and wide angle work, whereas in-lens stabilisation is to be preferred for telephoto work.


I'd be interested to hear from long-time users of stabilised telephoto lenses on Pentax bodies with in-body stabilisation whether they prefer one system over the other, or if indeed they've noticed any difference at all.


My main reason for asking is that I'm currently using a recently acquired Pentax K-70, mostly fitted with a Sigma 150-500mm for wildlife photography, mostly birds, often handheld, and I often experience the annoyance of the photographer standing next to me in the hide, some using a very similar lens, but on an "alternative manufacturer's" body, producing sharper, clearer, more stabilised images than mine. I use in-body stabilisation "as default", but should I change over to in-lens stabilisation when I have the option?


Obviously I'll be trying to make comparisons of my own, not easy when no two subjects are exactly the same, but it would be interesting to hear from anyone else who's already made tests and come up with a conclusion.

I’ve been photographing wildlife on and off since 2010. The first thing I think of when I hear about blurry subjects is the alignment between the camera and the lens. Either the lens isn’t manufactured precisely or the body or both. Use a device like Lens Align or just play around with auto focus fine tune in your camera. Don’t let these other guys throw you off your game......... The second thing that comes to mind is the ability of the lens to capture sharpness in indirect light. 500mm F/4s can do the trick. Daylight zooms seem to struggle. I’ve noticed this and I’ve talked to a guy who aligns cameras and lenses for others. He says slower zooms suffer in indirect lower light. As he says they are good lenses but not great lenses. My Sigma 500mm F/4.5 can barely hold its own in indirect light by producing sharp images. An example can be linked here.

[sutherland]

'whereas in-lens stabilisation is to be preferred for telephoto work'

If the lens is on a gimbal/tripod/monopod, no IS. If handheld, I prefer IBIS as that means I can buy cheap/fast old glass and not pay for the IS feature.