Bummer, Dan, sorry to hear this.

It's amazing, isn't it, how people are just so careless, unthinking, lazy, and often just stupid.

It seems to happen everywhere, all the time. Even closer to home, it was very nice indeed to get my Red Arrows pic published in the Pentax magazine, and they were very nice about it. But it took the gloss off it a bit when I noticed that they couldn't even be bothered to publish my name.

It was the same on the only other occasion I've ever had a photo in print. Don't know if you remember my picture of a barn fire, but that was published in a local rag many years ago - and my name was spelt wrong then too.

So you're not alone, Dan. This world seems inhabited by people that just don't give a damn.

They seem to be. I have the Samsung one (which I bought from Amazon at that price, after a much longer wait than that), and apart from the badge, it does seem to be the same.

The manual isn't the same - the AF-540 FGZ manual is a lot more extensive, but it expands on, rather than conflicts with, the one you get with the SEF.

Not on the K20D, but I've had similar with the K10D a couple of times. As you did, removing the battery cured it but nothing else did.

How close are you to the action?

Matt, that's absolutely fine to satisfy yourself, and I know enough about you to be inclined to trust your judgement.

But if you want to avoid the sort of anecdotal cobblers that abounds, and satisfy a critical community (which may not be only me, though I grant that it may ) with some actual science, you can't be saying things like that without a repeatable, verifiable, controlled experiment. You don't need me to tell you that.

If by this, you mean 2) is SR stabilised, and 3) is SR unstabilised, then I completely accept the results, and your conclusion. I'll repeat the experiment when I get a chance, and I fully expect to get the same result.

Well, with respect, this is just semantics.

You've created an easily repeatable source of shake in a very simple way. I'm delighted that it didn't need heavy engineering to achieve, but it is exactly what I was suggesting the whole time, and it's only with that source of shake that the experiment gained meaning.

But I am slightly disappointed that you didn't read my earlier posts on the subject a little more carefully - then it wouldn't have been necessary to suggest I was misunderstanding the whole issue.

I don't have your knowledge of camera technology, but I am not untrained when it comes to experimental design.

I never doubted your case - all it needed was an experiment to prove it, so well done.
And I rest mine

[quote="I"]As I said, you need conditions where SR(stabilised) can be shown to be effective, and then compare the SR(unstabilised) pictures.[/quote]Hopefully it was obvious what comparison to make, but I'll be specific just in case it wasn't...

- If the SR(unstabilised) pictures are more blurred than the SR(stabilised) ones, you can conclude that the SR is trying to act, and is doing too much.

- If the SR(unstabilised) pictures are equally as blurred as the SR(stabilised) ones, you cannot conclude anything, except that it makes no difference whether SR is stabilised or not.


Of course, the SR(unstabilised) pictures might still be less blurred than the SR-off ones, in which case it is still worth leaving SR on. This is why I suggested comparing the pre-SR-lock results with BOTH SR-off and SR-stabilised.

If you got this last result, you could conclude that the blurred pictures you got, even though the shutter speeds were fast enough not to expect blur, were just those annoying one-offs that we all get from time to time.

It's only if the SR(unstabilised) pictures are more blurred than the SR-off ones, that you should turn SR off.

I understand this - I've been reading the thread with care.

Yes, I absolutely understand the difference you're describing. I've been using the term "pre-SR-lock" to refer, specifically, to the picture you get if you release the shutter before SR has stabilised and given you the hand icon.

And I maintain that the experiment you described will not achieve this, because on a fixed platform, as I've said, there is not enough shake for SR (even stabilised) to show meaningful behaviour.

If SR(stabilised) does nothing measurable on a fixed platform, you cannot make any assumptions about what SR(unstabilised) may or may not do. You can see if it does anything, but from your description, the results are unclear.

Well, just take the picture before SR can stabilise - ie quickly.

As I said, you need conditions where SR(stabilised) can be shown to be effective, and then compare the SR(unstabilised) pictures.

You also need to be careful that in taking the picture quickly, in order to avoid SR-lock, you do not whack the button differently, else you could end up causing more shake than in the slower release of the SR(stabilised) case.

Sorry, Matt, I have to challenge your experimental design.

I've already shown that there's no discernible difference between the amount of (finger-induced) shake evident in SR-on-stabilised and SR-off pictures [Edit: on a sturdy tripod].

Therefore if you do an experiment that fixes the camera, you won't get enough shake for the SR to act in any meaningful manner. So by implication, neither will you get pre-SR-lock behaviour that's meaningful.

I still think this experiment needs to be done with a repeatable amount of shake, where it can be shown that stabilised SR is effective.

Only then will results from pre-SR-lock be meaningful.

Thanks for clarifying.

Is this the same one as we talked about before, that does not work in B mode?

If so, I really think that limitation should be made clear.

In that EPS page, it says "The JJC Remote Control is a cheaper alternative to the Pentax Remote Controls' E and F"

If it's the same, it's only an alternative if you don't want Bulb exposures.