|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
09-02-2017, 05:18 AM
|
| |
Obviously there are situations where you don't have a tripod or can't use one, but generally speaking, you will be better off using a tripod than relying on shake reduction in camera or lens for this long an exposure.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
09-02-2017, 04:41 AM
|
| |
I'm not sure if we are actually arguing. In general, there are few subjects that are going to be sharp with a five second exposure -- people move, leaves move, etc. So, if you want to freeze subject motion, you have to have a decent shutter speed, even if you could hand hold with a 1 second exposure. The exception to me is waterfalls. I try to shoot them with a tripod, but if I don't have one along SR does help stabilize things to the point that I can blur the water.
 Fallingwater Cascades by Vincent1825, on Flickr
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
09-02-2017, 03:08 AM
|
| |
This the DA *55 at 1/10 second.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
09-02-2017, 02:43 AM
|
| |
I've been pretty pleased with shake reduction. I haven't used an Olympus camera enough to know how they compare, although people speak highly of Olympus shake reduction. The time I use SR the most is with shooting waterfalls and I can get sharp images at 55mm and 1/8 second on the K3.
As for the 5 second exposure, I do have a hard time believing that you could have a pixel sharp image at that length of time without being on a tripod. At 50mm, say, that would be 8 stops of compensation with the image stabilization system which is far more than olympus advertises. In fact, Olympus released a statement a year ago saying that even with a combo of lens and body stabilization (available with only a few lenses) the maximum shake reduction was 6.5 stops due to the rotation of the earth.
|
