SR or IS


geordie01

Link Posted 09/07/2011 - 15:31
Having just obtained a Sigma 150-500 what do you folks recommend using the inbuilt image stabilizer in the lens or the shake reduction in the k-r
thanks
geordie

Tord

Link Posted 09/07/2011 - 15:35
I tend to use mine (newly bought from ffordes in Scotland) with the IS on, and sometimes the SR as well on - can't say I see any big differences!
Tord S Eriksson, MA
Pen & Ink man, ex-editor-in-chief, 'Ad Hoc is my middle name', RiscOS User, paddler, amateur bird watcher, aeronautics buff, Anglofile, Honorary memner of PAN, the world's oldest photo club. Married to Ann-Christine Mathiasson, who knows her way round a darkroom!

Helpful

Blythman

Link Posted 09/07/2011 - 15:45
In lens Geordie. Setting 1 fot static. Setting 2 for panning
Alan


PPG
Flickr

Helpful

TheVicar

Link Posted 09/07/2011 - 20:38
Geordie

A big advantage of in lens is that it stabilises what you see in the viewfinder, making composition much easier.
It's also supposed to give more stops benefit than 'in body'.
I believe if you have both on the gyroscopes "fight" each other,can anyone confirm that?
ist*DL2, 18-55Mk1, DFA 100 f2.8 Macro, Samsung GX-10, 10-17,18-55,50-200, Sigma 10-20,100-300, 150-500 Tamron 18-200, Jessops 360AFDP
ME Super, MX, 2No. 50mm f1.7, MZ-10, 28-70 f4, 28mm f2.8, Samyang 500 & 800 f8 mirrors, Vivitar 2x TC, K-01, K-30

Helpful

ChrisA

Link Posted 09/07/2011 - 23:52
TheVicar wrote:
I believe if you have both on the gyroscopes "fight" each other,can anyone confirm that?

Well, they're not gyroscopes. But yes, having lens IS on as well as body SR is going to give problems.

I had a go at explaining this here.
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.
Last Edited by ChrisA on 09/07/2011 - 23:52

Helpful

Algernon

Link Posted 10/07/2011 - 09:29
TheVicar wrote:
Geordie
It's also supposed to give more stops benefit than 'in body'.

Do you have any proof of that.... or are you just making up nonsense?
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi
Last Edited by Algernon on 10/07/2011 - 09:29

pentaxian450

Link Posted 10/07/2011 - 11:30
Tord wrote:
with the IS on, and sometimes the SR as well on

Using both together is as good as not using any. They will both counteract the same shake, so a "shake" in the opposite direction will result because it will double the shake reduction needed for a sharp picture.
Yves (another one of those crazy Canucks)

pentaxanne

Link Posted 10/07/2011 - 15:06
Algernon wrote:
TheVicar wrote:
Geordie
It's also supposed to give more stops benefit than 'in body'.

Do you have any proof of that.... or are you just making up nonsense?

i have found them to both be awsome but some lenses do have better is/os/vr, than inbuilt sr as you would expect as each lens can be disigned to work better at certain focal lengths,
and my husband has the 50-500mm os which truely is awsome and the os is better than any of his nikon vr lenses.
and as said dont use both together, if you use the lens os you can see it working in the view finder.
Last Edited by pentaxanne on 10/07/2011 - 15:07

thoughton

Link Posted 10/07/2011 - 15:50
Algernon wrote:
TheVicar wrote:
Geordie
It's also supposed to give more stops benefit than 'in body'.

Do you have any proof of that.... or are you just making up nonsense?

That seems unnecessarily aggressive to a new member.
Tim
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27, Macbook Pro 17, iPad, iPhone 3G
Flickr Fluidr PPG Street Portfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!

Frogfish

Link Posted 10/07/2011 - 16:10
pentaxanne wrote:
Algernon wrote:
Quote:
Geordie
It's also supposed to give more stops benefit than 'in body'.

Do you have any proof of that.... or are you just making up nonsense?

i have found them to both be awsome but some lenses do have better is/os/vr, than inbuilt sr as you would expect as each lens can be disigned to work better at certain focal lengths,
and my husband has the 50-500mm os which truely is awsome and the os is better than any of his nikon vr lenses.
and as said dont use both together, if you use the lens os you can see it working in the view finder.

There are plenty of tests out there that suggest there is a 1/2 to 1 stop advantage for in-lens vibration control, over in-camera, in Canon / Nikon lenses - however that comes at a major cost increase in the lens weight/cost. So we Pentax users get the best of both worlds, lower lens costs .... with every lens we put on being vibration controlled
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
Last Edited by Frogfish on 10/07/2011 - 16:35

Daniel Bridge

Link Posted 10/07/2011 - 16:13
thoughton wrote:
Algernon wrote:
Quote:
Geordie
It's also supposed to give more stops benefit than 'in body'.

Do you have any proof of that.... or are you just making up nonsense?

That seems unnecessarily aggressive to a new member.

Quite.

I did a rough and ready test when I was at LCE Colchester before. The Sigma 150-500 I tried did seem to stabilise the image better than the in-body stabilisation. I handheld at 1/90s at 500mm, switching between lens and body stabilisation, and invariably the lens produced the sharper shot.

I didn't like the view though with it on, I found it would suddenly lurch to one side, presumably when the limit of the stabilisation was reached. I much prefer putting up with a slightly visibly shaky viewfinder image, and pressing the shutter when I know the subject is in the right spot. That may be something that improves with use though.

Dan
K-3, a macro lens and a DA*300mm...

beginner

Link Posted 10/07/2011 - 16:35
Check this out!.....I'm impressed by the 10x magnification for manual focus,very clever!


http://youtu.be/KPdy52mR6Io
K20D...ist DS ,DA18/55,DA16/45.DA* 50/135,"A"1.7 50MM..."A" 70/210..M 50mm f2...Tamron 90mm macro,28/300 Tamron,200/500 Tamron 6.9....A Pentax DA*300... Sigma10/20,FA31mm 1.8 Ltd*********,FA 77mm Ltd!
Last Edited by beginner on 10/07/2011 - 16:35

Algernon

Link Posted 10/07/2011 - 16:37
Extensive tests have been documented on the other forum and it's accepted that the Oly in-body SR is the best at present. (They also have the fastest AF). These are all highly scientific tests. The K-5 which is supposed to be better hasn't been tested yet. link A lot of Nikon lenses aren't available with SR and in-lens SR was developed in the film days for film cameras. It adds enormous cost and weight to every lens. You even pay more for a lens with 4 stops stabilization than one with 2 stops. It's hardly coincidental that all the manufacturers who didn't develop film lens stabilization opted for in-body.

I have never seen any scientific evidence stating that in-lens was better than in-body it all points either the other way or that they are the same.

This link Oly E-520 scientific test concluded:

"The bottom line on the Olympus E-520's IS system is that
it turned in a superb performance, very much on par with
the best lens-based IS systems we've looked at."


So I await with interest a scientific test showing that in-lens is better than in-body otherwise it's just pure nonsense and lies that Pentax can well do without. In fact one poster on the US forum brought the matter up on a Nikon forum expecting to get flamed, but to his surprise they all agreed with him saying we wish we had in body stabilization.

Don't forget also that SR is designed for use around 1/25th sec.
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi

Tord

Link Posted 19/08/2011 - 13:38
No offence taken, but it is a interesting subject!

I just took three photos with my Sigma 150-500 (set at 230mm), free-hand, with both SR & OIS on, and eventually with only OIS on, and eventually only SR on, and while there is hardly any difference, I'd say SR comes out slightly worse!

Exposure was 1/60, f7.1, by the way, and the distance about 25 meters.

But it is all within the margin of error, as I can't prove I shook less, or more, while taking the first photo than the last!

Redid the test, at infinity, and 500mm (same aperature), and the results are even more in favour for the OIS. The subject this time was church steeple, and with SR on, or both on, you can't really see the lightning rod on side of the steeple, while it is quite sharp with only OIS on!



Sadly, I have no short focal length lens with OIS, but I kind of feel the advantage becomes less the shorter the focal length.

But I see no evidence of the great battle between the two stabilisation systems!
Tord S Eriksson, MA
Pen & Ink man, ex-editor-in-chief, 'Ad Hoc is my middle name', RiscOS User, paddler, amateur bird watcher, aeronautics buff, Anglofile, Honorary memner of PAN, the world's oldest photo club. Married to Ann-Christine Mathiasson, who knows her way round a darkroom!

Cuchulainn

Link Posted 19/08/2011 - 14:40
One thing that people often forget to mention in the in body versus in-lens stabilisation is that in-body IS can also correct for rotation errors - it's how the automatic horizon levelling works and also how the gps unit can allow long exposures. Such rotational correction is essentially impossible with in-lens correction (it's not strictly impossible, but would involve a lot of extra optics and weight and general... Faff!)
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.