Camera or Lens stabilisation ?
This topic has a poll - login to enter
Posted 08/08/2012 - 17:18
Link
The test wasn't thorough enough IMHO. You should have compared the normal lens with in camera SR and the OS version of the lens without SR.
I read that somewhere the OS lenses have a plus optical element that isn't part of the image reproduction system of the lens, that makes only the reduction of the shaking. But this optically unnecessary element spoils a bit the optical efficiency of the lens.
I don't know is it true or not but it sounds logically.
I read that somewhere the OS lenses have a plus optical element that isn't part of the image reproduction system of the lens, that makes only the reduction of the shaking. But this optically unnecessary element spoils a bit the optical efficiency of the lens.
I don't know is it true or not but it sounds logically.
Posted 08/08/2012 - 17:32
Link
szgabor wrote:
The test wasn't thorough enough IMHO. You should have compared the normal lens with in camera SR and the OS version of the lens without SR.
It was a bit of fun to waste a little time that I thought people may be interested in, not a full blown 5 page test for a AP. The test wasn't thorough enough IMHO. You should have compared the normal lens with in camera SR and the OS version of the lens without SR.
I'm not THAT worried about it to be testing the lens all day in laboratory conditions
Posted 08/08/2012 - 22:50
Link
A good thing to test in my opinion Mike. Two thoughts though - presumably handheld and I would have thought the human error of hand shake would be difficult to be constant between shots. The other is wouldn't it be more interesting at the marginal shutter speeds around 1/100th sec?
Dave
Dave
Posted 09/08/2012 - 18:25
Link
I think the only way this question (of which is better) can be answered is in the lab, and those tests have consistently shown in-lens outperforms in-camera. Which should come as no surprise when you consider that in each case the in-lens SR has been designed specifically for that lens.
Whether that makes much (any?) difference in actual use is debatable. All that matters is that the SR works well and if you can't tell the difference then both are doing what they are supposed to do !
I would guess the only times that the in-lens could be shown to be better in actual use would be in very specific circumstances, or at certain FLs or shutter speeds, which combinations may only occur once in a hundred shots, if that. So it would be very difficult to actually nail it down and say 'that was due to the SR'.
Whether that makes much (any?) difference in actual use is debatable. All that matters is that the SR works well and if you can't tell the difference then both are doing what they are supposed to do !
I would guess the only times that the in-lens could be shown to be better in actual use would be in very specific circumstances, or at certain FLs or shutter speeds, which combinations may only occur once in a hundred shots, if that. So it would be very difficult to actually nail it down and say 'that was due to the SR'.
http://frogfish.smugmug.com/ Pentax. Pentax DA*300/4, Cosina 55/1.2, Lens Baby Composer Pro & Edge 80, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.
Nikon. D800. D600. Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 300/2.8 VRII, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon TC20EIII, Nikon TC14EII, Kenko x1.4, Sigma 2.0
Nikon. D800. D600. Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 300/2.8 VRII, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon TC20EIII, Nikon TC14EII, Kenko x1.4, Sigma 2.0
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
802 posts
17 years
Sat in Chair
Paul
-------------------------------------------------------
Photography is an index for measuring futility and pride.......
Paul
:wink
http://s743.photobucket.com/home/pg20_photos/index
https://www.flickr.com/photos/pg20