[Wes]

Why do other vendors produce expensive lenses with shake reduction systems instead of designing camera bodies with shake reduction systems. Isn't the Pentax method of in body shake reduction superior?

[MrApollinax]

Without getting into the in-lens vs in-body debate, the reason other manufacturers are still producing in-lens systems is because they already made the investment and commitment in that technology path. Nikon and Canon have had stabilization systems to support their film SLRs. Pentax did not and was able to go with a in-body based system with their new DSLRs.

[jjdgti]

As MrApollinax said, Canon and Nikon already designed and sell the lenses with this technology. Since the two companies are so big and so many people had invested on this technology it will not be logical to change the course. People who paid big bucks for those lenses will feel cheated if the company now offers in body shake reduction. Also both technologies will they work together? What will be the acceptance? Quality Issues? If one is better than the other, how can they promote both?

It was really easy decision for Pentax since they did not have any before DSLR era. Sometimes is better to come later to the market with new ideas than introduce one in the middle of the game.

[GerryL]

Welcome to the forums Wes!
As both of the reply said and in addition, lens SR per se, as some would say is better.
I said "per se" since if you look at it on that note on a per lens performance basis, but if you look at it in a more common sense basis, then the in-body SR wins hands down 'coz every lens you mount on it would become stabilized and you wont' need to buy it again and again when you need another lens.

[robgo2]

I have no doubt whatsoever that if Nikon and Canon had not long ago started down the path of in-lens stabilization, they would now be producing cameras with stabilization, just as Pentax, Olympus and Sony are doing.

Here is a link to a very well done study of the effectiveness of the K-7's SR. Executive summary: It works very well.

A study of the effectiveness of K7 shake reduction [Page 1]: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Rob

[RioRico]

I have no doubt whatsoever that if Nikon and Canon had not long ago started down the path of in-lens stabilization, they would now be producing cameras with stabilization, just as Pentax, Olympus and Sony are doing.

I think you mean in-body stabilization.

There are several other current threads dealing with the efficacy of Pentax's in-body SR. It works.

Why doesn't everybody do it yet? Product development is incremental, evolutionary. Many new features get tried, some succeed, some don't. It's sort of like throwing spaghetti against a wall to see if it sticks. Or more like breeding a mutant to see if it survives. Pentax had an early AF system with a BIG on-lens motor. It didn't last long. I think (but I could be wrong) it was Canon who first put IS gear into lenses. Then Nikon. Now they're the sharks of the camera world -- they evolved an early success, but are now being outmaneuvered by agile orcas etc who've evolved newer strategies. Is that a good metaphor?

There are several ways to stabilize / freeze images. Move lens elements; move image sensors; compare pixels; use high shutter speeds or flash; use a tripod or otherwise fix/solidify the relationship between camera and subject. Et cetera. Some new methods or hybridization of methods will undoubtedly emerge into the marketplace soon. I expect optical interferometry within the decade. Each new method incites the development of newer methods. Evolve or be devoured.

[falconeye]

Read all about it in this thread:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/97590-pentax-shake...ited-test.html

[jjdgti]

Interesting info. Thanks.

[AOShep]

The only advantage I have ever heard for lens stabilization is you can see how stabile the shot will be before shooting. However, no longer true with live view screens.

[distudio]

The only advantage I have ever heard for lens stabilization is you can see how stabile the shot will be before shooting. However, no longer true with live view screens.

It also stands to reason that the AF sensors (which are fixed in the body) would likely be able to lock onto subjects being tracked with greater ease and accuracy when the image from the lens is stabilised. There are definitely advantages to both systems, Pentax was simply late to the party (as always) so adopted the easy way out (effectively).

[Canada_Rockies]

It also stands to reason that the AF sensors (which are fixed in the body) would likely be able to lock onto subjects being tracked with greater ease and accuracy when the image from the lens is stabilised. There are definitely advantages to both systems, Pentax was simply late to the party (as always) so adopted the easy way out (effectively).

I believe Pentax' choice has more to do with their traditional (and very valuable to me over the years) support of legacy lenses than to pick an easy way out. My opinionated opinion only, of course.

[distudio]

I believe Pentax' choice has more to do with their traditional (and very valuable to me over the years) support of legacy lenses than to pick an easy way out. My opinionated opinion only, of course.

My point is that they could have also implemented in-lens SR in the film days but were late to the party. Personally I'm still irked that lenses I've had for over 20 years can't be used off the aperture ring's A position without having to resort to stop down metering, it's primitive compared with what went before. And yes I know this has been covered a million times but I've still seen no compelling argument against inclusion of an aperture position sensor (which would provide superior backwards compatibility) other than cost (bearing in mind that these feedback systems were included in the very cheapest of Pentax's film cameras).

If Pentax had implemented SR in-lens undoubtedly we'd all now be arguing about how much better it is than the Sony/Minolta in camera SR, that's just life ;-)

[jct us101]

Lens based shake reduction is a little more effective generally and has a little less chance of having problems, for the most part. Also, if your camera breaks, you don't have to worry about buying another one with the Shake Reduction built in. The lenses do cost a little bit more usually, but they do have a ton of advantages that make buying them much better for both the manufacturers and the people buying them.

[Pentaxie]

Well, there are pros and cons for in-lens shake reduction as compared with camera body shake reduction. Some may view that in-lens shake reduction is a little more effective generally and has a little less chance of having problems. The cons is that the cost is very expensive.

We in the Pentax should be grateful that Pentax older lenses is still compatible with the current and newer camera body.

[Nass]

Some excellent research about the Pentax SR mechanism here: A study of the effectiveness of K7 shake reduction [Page 1]: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Bottom line, useful for slow shutter speeds only