honest review required - k100d and SR

this question is directed at those who has had a real go at their SR function on the k100d.

best is the be able to show 2 images - 1 with SR, 1 without SR. While it is hard to prove accurately, please show best possible results. Of course we don't want marketing gimmicks, let's see how users really benefit from this extra function.

the image to the left is w/sr AND a slower shutter than the right without + faster shutter.

It works, no question about it.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lethaltalons/

Oh, this was @ 300mm ISO200 1/30 and 1/40 shutter
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lethaltalons/

Janneman 02 one of our premier members did a very good test. Check out this thread:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=19647176

east(pretty ingenious if I do say so myself)saltwater

I have a good example that I was going to post a couple, but the two images aren't on my laptop. Maybe I'll get around to it later. Anyway, there is no doubt that it works. Janneman's lawnmower test proves that much.

I think that it also shows that the system can compensate for just about anything that is thrown at it as long as the motion doesn't exceed the amount of travel in the system. The intensity of vibration caused by a lawnmower has little variation provided the throttle is constant and the load is too. I've never seen that amount of difference between on and off in real world shooting that the lawnmower test shows. Hand shake has random spikes to it that exceed the range of correction in SR. That is why even with SR on you need to take more than one shot if you are near the limit. One may be perfect, the next blurry. The slower the shutter speed, the more likely one of these spikes will be present during exposure. Optical stabilization has the same issues.

I don't know why so many people doubt Pentax SR. I don't think people questioned KM's system despite it being employed in everything from DSLRs to superzooms. While they are mechanically different, the principle is the same.

--

Verbage is not a word, but a mangling of verbiage - differing in both print and meaning. It replaces more cumbersome words such as copy and text.

Don't have any images for you, but I did make some when my 100D arrived. It works. The difference is noticeable unless you're using high shutter speeds and/or wide lenses. I got the camera for my wife, who has trouble holding an SLR with zoom lens steady. Bottom line: It cured her problem.

I've used other cameras and lenses with image stabilization and wouldn't be without it.

Found them



Guess which one has SR on ;-)

Both shots at f/8 1/30th sec 160mm. Images are 100% shot with the Pentax 50-200.

There is still a slight bit of blur on the image, but these are actual size crops. If you have to have perfectly sharp images, you need a tripod no matter whose system your buying into. For hand held shots it makes a world of difference. I could have taken more shots and wound up with both better before and after examples, but I would say the difference in these two pretty much exemplifies my real world results.
--

Verbage is not a word, but a mangling of verbiage - differing in both print and meaning. It replaces more cumbersome words such as copy and text.

Sorry, no images. What I like best about SR is that when you're at the verge of what you think you need for a sharp image such as 1/60th with 50mm or 1/200th with 200mm there is no question that your pic will be sharp. Before SR there was always a question whether the old rule-of-thumb would work. Bob.

Yep.

See my posts in this thread: "What type of photos does AS help the most with"
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&thread=20496476

BobNan said:

Sorry, no images. What I like best about SR is that when you're at
the verge of what you think you need for a sharp image such as
1/60th with 50mm or 1/200th with 200mm there is no question that
your pic will be sharp. Before SR there was always a question
whether the old rule-of-thumb would work. Bob.

Click to expand...

--



http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelbarkowski/