Thanks Reuben!
The shots I'm referring to were around 45mm, 1/80s and still blurred... but as I said, it could've been partly down to the spur of the moment.

Wonder if there is an objective way to test this out
Matt

Mike,
You are correct, SR does need stabilisation time. In continuous mode all is well - the camera will track any shake.
My problem was probably that I'm quickly putting the camera to my eye, knowing that the focus is correct (because neither I nor the subject had moved and I was working at f/11-ish), and then firing the shutter. I'm wondering if SR in these situations may be the cause of the shake - perhaps if I'd had SR disabled then these shots would've been ok.

But I suppose I'll never know!

Matt

FWIW: On the wedding theme - I really, really could have done with the SMC-DA* 50-135, and probably the 16-50 too But the 50/1.4 and 100/2.8 filled in at f/2.8 and f/3.2, plus the 24-90 as the main lens.

I'm starting this thread partly in response to the comments made by ChrisA and Don regarding SR.

Shot a wedding on Saturday with the K20D - something like 6.5Gb of RAW files
There are a few images (and I mean a few) that were blurred when the shutter-speed/focal-length would dictate that it should've been fine.

I've been looking at the RAW files with PhotoME - which shows all kinds of interesting EXIF information

Turns out that the majority of the blurred shots had SR turned on, but SR had not stabilised... for example, the shutter had been held for only 0.28s (sometimes much shorter). This is interesting because I only ever use the "AF" button for focus.

Now, I'm aware that it is possible to get camera shake even when the shutter speed is faster than the focal length "rule-of-thumb". However, I do have a very steady hand But added to that was the fact that there were a lot of shots, and it was a very long day...

On the positive side, I have a number of pin sharp shots taken at slow shutter speeds using SR.


Maybe the thing is to remember to give SR time to work out what's happening - so it doesn't "misread" shake that isn't there!

Any thoughts or evidence?
Matt

I once had dust in my SMC-FA 24-90 and thought about using an anti-static gun (from the LP record days) - but didn't in the end (didn't want to pop the EEPROM memory in the lens! )

The lens got sorted... it got dropped, and repaired on insurance (around £150 to sort out! Yikes!)

It almost certainly won't make much (or any) difference in the final image anyway
Matt

Don't know anything specifically about this one, but I've had similar types of emails - suggesting I join a website, or cross-link to their website, or add my name to their directory.

Perhaps I'm paranoid, but I've steered clear of them all

Just did a Google for "swapey.com" - looks like they have a lot of similar types of service. As with all such things, you need to check the T&Cs carefully.

To be honest, it's so easy these days to set up your own gallery and software that it's hardly worth checking these types of things out - unless they are promising something in return (and, as usual the phrase "if it looks too good to be true then it probably is" certainly applies as well )

Matt

LOL! Yes, George, the skills you learned are still extremely useful and applicable to digital
There's still a lot to be said for the "A" mode flash - and there's some little tricks with the dSLRs that can help too.
P-TTL can be a mixed blessing, TBH. It is very good at preserving the highlights (which is important for digital). However, there are times when it just seems underexposed - it's almost too cautious. Yet, most of the "problems" with P-TTL are down to people not understanding the limitations and restrictions of flash in general.

I'd say - if you're getting the results you need, stick to what you have
(Some of the nicest facilities of P-TTL are wireless triggering and high speed synchronisation. But they're not essential to most requirements.)

Matt

AFAIK, both Canon & Nikon are P-TTL (i-TTL etc) only.
There may even be compatibility issues with older flashes too
Matt

Think you missed a zero
I seem to remember it was in the region of 300 to 400V for Pentax DSLRs.
EDIT: See This old thread:
One reason is that TTL flash requires another light sensor to pick up the reflected light off the film. The low pass filters on the CCD can be quite reflective apparently, compared to film which was fairly matt.
I'm not 100% sure if it's down to these technical issues, or whether it's down to having another sensor, or something else.

This weekend I'm using my old Metz in "A" mode on the K20D I'll let you know how it goes
Matt

I think it was the new Pentax ring flash that has a choice of L/R/Both
Matt

Thanks for the encouragement Don & Chris
Let me see how I get on in the next week or so, and then I'll PM
Matt