Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-14-2010, 09:40 AM   #1
New Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2
camera shake reduction

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?

04-14-2010, 09:53 AM   #2
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Minnesota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,530
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.
04-14-2010, 10:04 AM   #3
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,738
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.
04-14-2010, 10:51 AM   #4
Veteran Member
GerryL's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: CA
Posts: 2,731
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.

04-14-2010, 11:04 AM   #5
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Mexico
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,125
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
04-14-2010, 11:21 AM   #6
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by robgo2 Quote
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.
04-14-2010, 11:39 AM   #7
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
Read all about it in this thread:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/97590-pentax-shake...ited-test.html
04-14-2010, 11:46 AM   #8
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,738
Interesting info. Thanks.

04-14-2010, 06:31 PM   #9
Senior Member
AOShep's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eastern PA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 293
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.
04-14-2010, 06:47 PM   #10
Veteran Member
distudio's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney
Photos: Albums
Posts: 448
QuoteOriginally posted by AOShep Quote
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).
04-14-2010, 09:20 PM   #11
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,533
QuoteOriginally posted by distudio Quote
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.
04-14-2010, 09:37 PM   #12
Veteran Member
distudio's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney
Photos: Albums
Posts: 448
QuoteOriginally posted by Canada_Rockies Quote
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 ;-)
04-15-2010, 12:38 AM   #13
Veteran Member
jct us101's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Rohnert Park, CA
Posts: 3,695
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.
04-15-2010, 02:09 AM   #14
Veteran Member
Pentaxie's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kuala Lumpur Malaysia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 429
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.
04-15-2010, 02:32 AM   #15
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Nass's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The British Isles
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,251
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
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, photography, reduction, systems
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Shake Reduction Help TimShadler Video and Pentax HDSLRs 10 11-30-2009 01:56 PM
Shake reduction not on? Iowa Tom Pentax DSLR Discussion 9 08-11-2008 04:00 PM
shake reduction jay legere Pentax DSLR Discussion 7 01-20-2008 07:45 AM
in-camera shake reduction vs in-the-lens WMBP Pentax DSLR Discussion 17 02-23-2007 09:13 PM
Shake reduction & camera life Brew1brew Pentax DSLR Discussion 9 09-27-2006 05:58 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:26 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top