Stablisation

We all know Pentax camera's have in-built shake reduction. How does this compare to having in lens stability ? Obviously Pentax owners only purchase it once. But has anyone ever compared the systems ?

The systems have been compared in the photo press and on the web quite extensively.

In lens systems wobble but can be seen to lock, which some might think a good thing, but makes me sea-sick to look at. It may be more efficient in reducing shake, but not dramatically so. It makes lenses more expensive and bulkier. It strikes me it also leaves more to go out of alignment.

In body systems may be slightly less efficient, but can be used with all lenses and accessories. Lenses can be more compact and less expensive, but the second is a moot point sometimes.

In any event the systems allow a 2-4 stop advantage in hand holding, but none of them help at all with subject movement. So birds, for example, still need high shutter speeds to arrest their movement.

I have both and I can see no difference. I've even left both turned on, and I can still see no difference.

I've found any kind of stabilisation softens images to too high a degree and nothing seems to be able to combat my shaky arms.

Thanks guys. I was just having a discussion with a Canon user. Who stated the lens system was far better. (Well he would wouldn't he ) In all honesty, I didn't have a clue. So just thought I would ask....

I loved the fact that all my old lenses were stabilised; it was one of the reasons for going digital with Pentax. My first ever post on here, was an example from the K10D with and without shake reduction. The difference was unscientifically impressive. We should post our best examples.
Here's my starter taken last night across a very dark dancefloor. 3200iso, 1/8th, f2.5, 77mm. Clearly usable, on the web at least

I have stabilisation on my Canon lenses and inbody for my Pentax. I prefer the lens variety purely for the stable image through the viewfinder but in performance terms I really cannot see any difference worth worrying about.

I know a Nikon owner (money no object) and he has said he prefers the Pentax In-Camera SR system to the Nikon VR. His comments on image quality are "swings and roundabouts" - some are better with In-Camera and others with In-Lens however as it is difficult to get two identical images how can you really tell.

And how would he know?

I can't see how image stabilisation of any kind could make that happen unless the stabilisation system is not given time to stabilise/lock. If that's the case, it's user error and not a fault of the stabilisation system. If using in body SR, have a look at the EXIF of some of the 'soft' images and check if the SR had locked.

It's not the stabilisation system that softens the images (unless the user sets the wrong focal length on a manual focus lens), it's the camera shaking about. The stabilisation system compensates for that - perhaps not perfectly but much better than none.

I've used lens based IS on the Canon Eos 5 (film SLR) and 28-135 IS lens years ago, can't remember much about it other than the queasy viewfinder image. It kind of appeared like a series of snapshots, steady for a few seconds then jumping to a slightly different position and steady for a few more seconds etc. I'm sure you'd get used to it if used a lot.

Body based IS works on any lens you stick on the front, no need to buy pricey, exotic and bulky/heavy glass. No need for Pentax to make IS and non-IS lens ranges. This is more important to me than how many 'effective' stops each might offer. Then there's the AstroTracer functionality...

John.

Oh yes astrotracer! That's genius

Typically the in lens stabilisation approach is better for the larger focal lengths, where the corrections required exceed the travel limits of the in camera sensor movement mechanism. So, for example, if you had a stabilised larger focal length lens, say 250mm and up, then you might get better results by using the in lens option instead.

In practise though the in body option has the benefits of working with all lenses attached. For the smaller focal lengths the effect is the same. It's a nice to have, and Olympus do something similar.

Some Pentax cameras do not offer this in video mode though unfortunately, opting for an electronic approach which creates some distinctive nauseating wobble and warp distortions.

I cannot remember which it was but one of the lens hire firms published information on the reliability/ break downs on hired lenses - the most unreliable were the most complex stabilised types

Closely followed were the Korean manual focus lenses, however, the whole thing was qualified by the fact that they were rental lenses that were given a hard time and that if you buy any lens and look after it the failure rate would be much lower

Which is the more reliable in terms of lasting may be the bigger issue rather than which one works best when brand new - maybe / maybe not

I forgot to mention the IS on my 28-135 IS which lived a very cosseted life broke within months of buying. It was repaired under warranty but I swapped for the EF50/1.8ii which was much more pleasurable to use than the huge/heavy 28-135 - it needed IS more often that you'd normally expect.

Having SR in the body doesn't prevent you putting a stabilised lens on the front either.