Bringing people over to Pentax.

cycoj · Apr 29, 2008

philbarton said:
yesman12 said:

philbarton said:

Loading down a body with a mechanism (essentially a gyroscope) is
second-best when the mass is far in front of the focal plane. Try
lifting a large lens off the table by holding the very back end, and
you'll get the idea.

Click to expand...

Motion and Mass are two separate concepts. The goal of Image
Stabilization is not to counter the Inertia (ie mass) of the Lens but
to counter the motion of the projected image. Yes, the moment of
inertia of a large lens would require a large counterforce if one
were to counter balance its motion as is done in a telescope.
However, Image stabilization is countering the angular motion of the
IMAGE projected by the lens during the period of exposure. Thus,
moving a image plane with a motion counter to movement of the
camera/lens system is all that is required and is not dependent upon
the mass of the lens. This is true of both in lens and in camera
stabilization systems.

Click to expand...

--------

Good technical explanation, but IS in the body is one more thing to
break and cause the entire camera to be repaired - and the repair
cost of a modern out-of-warranty DSLR can exceed the cost of a lens.

How is that different from in-lens IS if that breaks the lens needs to be repaired and the cost of a modern out-of-warranty DSLR repair is not more expansive than one of the expansive IS lenses from Canon or Nikon. That is just not a valid argument.

philbarton said:
The TV industry tried this with a combined TV and VCR, and when one
went out, effectively both went out. The camera body designer would
have to contend potentially with new sub-assemblies having to fit in
a body with space occupied by the IS mechanism, as well as the
screw-drive for AF. I suppose if you're going to build 2 bodies a
year it's not as much of a penalty; but the majors build a lot more
new bodies than that, and finding space for new mechanicals can be a
headache in a market looking for "smaller" and "lighter".

Again how's that different from in-lens IS? When one goes both go. And with respect to space, there is more space in the camera body than in a lens and in-lens IS adds a lot more weight to the lens than in body IS to the camera body. They have to add glass elements, glass is not light.

philbarton said:
With a long lens the image can actually move off the optical axis and
a bit out of frame, which the in-camera IS would then need to
"chase". With the complexity of lens design today including AF fully
in-lens with ring-USM, rather than constant direction by the body via
screw-drive, it's a simpler solution for those makers to let the lens
also handle the IS by one moving element, since lenses are now
computer-designed in terms of optical performance.

That argument is rubbish, "because lenses are so complex now, it's easier to add additional complexity to the lens"?! Even if that would be a valid argument how does it not apply to bodies?

philbarton said:
What Pentax got out of this was a CHEAP solution. This was not
engineered as some "superior methodology", but for cost savings by
passing that same system from body to body, and also to keep the
lenses CHEAP, and to have a talking point for marketing. If it's all
one requires of a camera, then so be it. A working pro will go for
the solution that's been successful for years; and they're already
well-invested in IS lenses.

Again, show some proof. Canon and Nikon only stay with in-lens IS for pure business reasons. If they would bring out a in-body IS they would take a serious chunk out of their IS lenses sales. They would also offend the users who have heavily invested in in-lens IS. That's just not in their business interest. Why do you think have all other major players in-body IS?

philbarton said:
In time, a simple new technology can satisfy 80 percent of the
requirements. It's that other 20 percent that you don't have access
to that's the problem.

But in-lens IS as much bigger limitations than in-body IS. Why do you think C/N have not released any fast short-telephoto primes or wide-angle lenses with IS? It is not possible. You also compromise image quality, because you have to add glass elements only for the IS system. While in-body IS can deliver stabilization for all focal lengths without compromising image quality.

philbarton said:
It's why that sports car owner pays more for tires - ultimate
performance.

cycoj · Apr 29, 2008

philbarton said:
yesman12 said:

You keep using market share arguments to bolster your technical
argument about Image Stablization. YES C/N have a very large market
share. No debate. IS lenses are a very small % of their sales. By
your argument, the market is also voting that IS in lenses is not
worth the expense.

So what are you trying to prove?
--
Best regards
Nick

Click to expand...

=============

Where do you get the IS-Share figures for Canon's and Nikon's lenses?

Their bodies do not contain IS; which makes the question as to
percent of lens sales decisions to the buyer. Their users either
WANT the I.S. and buy those lenses; or they don't. But they DO have
many options for I.S. in the lens, and they're also getting to decide
on ring-USM at the same time, in many cases.

In addition, there's nothing to stop a third-party maker from
producing a lens with VR in it - here, again, it would be the LONG
lenses.

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3324&navigator=6

"Sigma’s own unique technology OS (Optical Stabilizer) function -
The 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 OS is equipped with Sigma’s own unique OS
(Optical Stabilizer) technology. This system uses two sensors inside
the lens to detect vertical and horizontal movement of the camera by
moving an optical image stabilizing lens group, to effectively
compensate for camera shake. It also automatically detects panning
movement of the camera and compensate for camera shake when shooting
moving subjects such as motor sports."

Pentax, on the other hand, gives you NO choice in I.S., and their
system is "all or nothing", limiting use with panning and shooting
moving objects. For LONG lenses, you get no choice.

You are simply unbelievable. The way you spin the facts is just amazing. For SHORT teles you don't get any choice from C/N. There simply is not one prime lens with a focal length of less than 200mm from Canon which has IS. So I'd argue I have more choice with Pentax.

philbarton said:
All of the LONG teles listed on Canon's site are USM and IS.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=154

The extended-range zooms offer choices - most are ring-USM, and some
are IS - that gives the buyer a choice.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=150

That puts the decision right where it belongs - in the hands of the
buyers. If they decide they want I.S., they buy a different lens.

How many times do I have to repeat it, they can't for short tele primes or wide-angles.

cycoj · Apr 29, 2008

philbarton said:
kalpaha said:

philbarton said:

How about presenting a credible testing to back your statements with?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

=================

People keep telling ME about their links showing how the systems
compete, and I have not seen them. Show me comparisons at 300mm and
up, please.

Because there is no theoretical evidence that in-lens IS is better it's on you to back up your claim that it is.

philbarton said:
=================

philbarton said:

But you can take into account your breathing pattern when you see it
in the viewfinder, plus you're not wasting battery on stabilizing the
image all the time.

Click to expand...

When shooting a moving subject, your body motion far exceeds
inhale/exhale. IS-in-lens can handle panning; Pentax cannot. The
battery draw for in-lens IS is minimal, and you can turn it off.

=================

philbarton said:

No matter how much you juggle with words, the fact is that a body is
something that people change much more often than their lenses. Thus
having the IS in the body allows all your lenses to get improved
stabilization as the manufacturers improve in-body-IS. This also
means less need for maintenance for your lenses, since there is less
technology with potential to break down. Also the optical design of
the lens does not need to be compromised to add a moving VR element.

Kalle

Click to expand...

=================

If someone owns IS-in-lens already, improved IS-in body is utterly
irrelevant. The mechanicals in the Pentax body are far more complex
than what's in the lenses.

Seriously back claims like this up, at least with some reasoning. What you are doing here seriously is really close to trolling. You just making wild claims without any evidence to back them up.

philbarton said:
I've never seen a review re "compromises" required due to a moving VR
element. Please provide one. You can also turn VR off, if you want.

You have to add glass elements, which you also have to move, thus not always using the sweet spot of the lens. How can that not effect IQ? Why do you think lenses are sharper in the center than at the edges?

And the ability to turn VR off is totally irrelevant, because the extra glass elements will still be there.

philbarton said:
http://www.bythom.com/70200VRlens.htm

"I've saved the most obvious performance questions for last. One of
the first things I get asked about this lens is "does the VR work?"
I've postponed discussing this aspect of performance because I need
this lens to work without VR before I can even consider using it at
slow shutter speeds or in moving vehicles. As should be obvious by
now, even without VR this would be a remarkable lens. And yes, the VR
works.

Sharp. One of Nikon's sharpest lenses ever. Sharp at every aperture.
Sharp with teleconverters. And the VR helps you achieve that
sharpness."

Just because Nikon can still make a lens with high IQ with in-lens IS does not mean the system does not compromise IQ. They just have to put a much bigger effort into the IQ. BTW that lens has a list price of 2300 USD, why do you think it is so expansive, because they had to make the extra effort to counter the detrimental effects of IS on the IQ.

yesman12 · Apr 29, 2008

philbarton said:
yesman12 said:

The jury is still out on how effective IS with a full frame sensor
will be. I would not assume that it cannot be done.
--
Best regards
Nick

Click to expand...

===============

It becomes irrelevant, unless Sony (yes, they could do FF) or Pentax
joins the FF brigade and produces a production camera.

The question becomes not WHETHER it could be done, but IF it makes
sense to marketing to do it, since they routinely make VR lenses;
particularly in longer focal lengths and long zooms.

Imagine that Pentax/Samsung gets out a FF body - and that of course
requires lenses that currently do not exist, with a sufficient image
circle for that larger sensor.

Since sizewise alone those made-for-FF lenses would also mount on an
APS-C DSLR (image circle being the deciding factor, as the
conventional wisdom is to design a made-for-digital lens for the
intended image circle, and no larger) - the in-Lens IS (or whatever
they'd call it) would either have to be turned off on the APS-C body
to let the body's system work - or the body's system would be turned
off to let the lens function as it was designed to. The only moment
where they could potentially interfere is right smack during the
shot, which may not really be a problem (I'll leave that one to
Pentax to decide).

TO BE HONEST I CANNOT FOLLOW YOUR LOGIC. At one point you claimed that In camera IS would not be achieveable in a FF format. THen you seem to state that it can be done (above), but that Pentax should make IS lenses for marketing reasons if they released a FF camera. Your original objection to my statement that in camera IS is a way to sell people on Pentax was that In Camera IS is a marketing gimmick. This is circular.

You also seem to be complaining about the lack of long glass for full frame while completely forgetting that the FA lenses were full frame and seem to be re-incarnated in a digital format ala the recent 200 and 300mm lenses.

Then you append a long list of links about the advatanges of a full frame sensor which is a new issue to the above thread and entirely tangential and has nothing to do with the argument on in camera versus in lens IS.

I have resisted commenting on your logic in other threads but now I am really having a hard time.

cycoj · Apr 29, 2008

philbarton said:
It becomes irrelevant, unless Sony (yes, they could do FF) or Pentax
joins the FF brigade and produces a production camera.

The question becomes not WHETHER it could be done, but IF it makes
sense to marketing to do it, since they routinely make VR lenses;
particularly in longer focal lengths and long zooms.

Who is they? C/N? It does not make sense for Pentax to make in-lens IS then, because I'd mean either to license C/N patents, or to work around them, both options not really desirable. There is also no compelling reason why. So far there is no reasons suggesting that in-body IS couldn't be done with a FF sensor, so why not use the existing technology Pentax/Samsung already own.

philbarton said:
Imagine that Pentax/Samsung gets out a FF body - and that of course
requires lenses that currently do not exist, with a sufficient image
circle for that larger sensor.

You keep repeating that but Pentax does have lenses for an FF body, all the FA lenses and a number of the DA lenses are reported to work on FF as well.

philbarton said:
Since sizewise alone those made-for-FF lenses would also mount on an
APS-C DSLR (image circle being the deciding factor, as the
conventional wisdom is to design a made-for-digital lens for the
intended image circle, and no larger) - the in-Lens IS (or whatever
they'd call it) would either have to be turned off on the APS-C body
to let the body's system work - or the body's system would be turned
off to let the lens function as it was designed to. The only moment
where they could potentially interfere is right smack during the
shot, which may not really be a problem (I'll leave that one to
Pentax to decide).

But why should they suddenly use in-lens IS for a FF body. There is just no compelling reason. It only would be any real advantage if they could somehow manage to combine in-body and in-lens stabilization, that would provide serious advantages over all existing systems.

philbarton said:
Here's a rather detailed discussion on some of these MANY issues,
including a discussion of off-axis rays and image circles:

http://www.digitalsecrets.net/secrets/FullFrameWars.html

"1. Sheer pixel count truly is a Big Deal. Up to a point. And because
packing them in is directly related to surface area, the existence of
Full Frame cameras will always allow 200+% more photosite
opportunities and marketing departments won't ever let you forget
that.

2. More pixels mean greater real estate to crop among. You could, for
instance, crop a dandy 6MP image out of the 5D's 12.8MP image and
print it big. The same applies to the 400D, 40D and Nikon D200, D80
and D40x.

3. Larger surfaces naturally allow larger photosites and they
are--all technologies being equal--lower in noise than smaller ones.
Canon brags that the 40D has an even better tweaked 10.1MP image chip
over the 400D. We shall see, but this sort of improvement is almost
expected.

3.5. Following these positives by half a point is the diffraction
relationship. 1/3 of an f-stop better lens closed down performance
from the 5D."

Great selective quoting! You are omitting the rest of the article which is very skeptical about the advantages of FF cameras, especially for the price point. Just underneath the points you quoted:

"2.7MP + 1/3 f-stop of diffraction limit = 200% to 600% in price premium? Not in my wallet."

You would be a lot more credible if you wouldn't revert to these sort of tactics.

philbarton said:
Re the Canon USM IS 28-135mm:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-135mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

"Next to the great focal length range, Image Stabilization (IS) is my
favorite Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens feature. Some debate
the usefulness of IS in a shorter focal length zoom lens, but I think
it is great. If your subject is not moving, you can shoot handheld in
much less light than without IS - or at a lower ISO setting. To
activate IS, simply turn the IS switch to the on position and press
the shutter release half way. You will hear the stabilizer start up
(a click and then a continuous hum - they are not loud). The image in
the viewfinder will jump slightly (this is an older version of IS -
but still very useful) and the viewfinder will become still (unlike
camera-based IS). Keep in mind that the version of IS on this lens
needs to be turned off when tripod-mounted. Not doing so may cause
the image stabilizer to act erratically."

Yeah and compare that to either the Pentax Pentax SMCP-FA 28-105mm f/3.2-4.5 for half the price or the Pentax SMCP-DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 although more expansive but constant aperature. Both stabilized lenses. And both have a lens hood included the Canon does not. Photozone.de is also not quite so exited about this lens

philbarton said:
Another lens:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-300mm-f-3.5-5.6-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Another feature that Canon has gotten better at over the years is IS
(Image Stabilization). It is an excellent feature that I am happy has
found a home on the Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens. Canon
advertises being able to handhold at 3 f-stops less than with a
non-IS lens. That is a really nice feature on a slower lens such as
this. Mode 1 and 2 (panning mode) IS are available.

The IS version on this lens is tripod-sensing. The Canon EF 28-300mm
f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens knows that a tripod is being used when
vibrations go below a certain level. Keep IS turned on when mounting
the 28-300 on a tripod to take advantage of this secondary IS mode -
reducing mirror slap, shutter and tripod vibrations.

2300 USD at adorama, that's a bargain.

philbarton said:
(Pentax is NOT tripod sensing)

Seriously who cares about tripod sensing. It's not like you'd be that likely to forget to switch the IS on or off when mounting or unmounting to a tripod.

cycoj · Apr 29, 2008

yesman12 said:
philbarton said:

yesman12 said:

The jury is still out on how effective IS with a full frame sensor
will be. I would not assume that it cannot be done.
--
Best regards
Nick

Click to expand...

===============

It becomes irrelevant, unless Sony (yes, they could do FF) or Pentax
joins the FF brigade and produces a production camera.

The question becomes not WHETHER it could be done, but IF it makes
sense to marketing to do it, since they routinely make VR lenses;
particularly in longer focal lengths and long zooms.

Imagine that Pentax/Samsung gets out a FF body - and that of course
requires lenses that currently do not exist, with a sufficient image
circle for that larger sensor.

Since sizewise alone those made-for-FF lenses would also mount on an
APS-C DSLR (image circle being the deciding factor, as the
conventional wisdom is to design a made-for-digital lens for the
intended image circle, and no larger) - the in-Lens IS (or whatever
they'd call it) would either have to be turned off on the APS-C body
to let the body's system work - or the body's system would be turned
off to let the lens function as it was designed to. The only moment
where they could potentially interfere is right smack during the
shot, which may not really be a problem (I'll leave that one to
Pentax to decide).

Click to expand...

TO BE HONEST I CANNOT FOLLOW YOUR LOGIC. At one point you claimed
that In camera IS would not be achieveable in a FF format. THen you
seem to state that it can be done (above), but that Pentax should
make IS lenses for marketing reasons if they released a FF camera.
Your original objection to my statement that in camera IS is a way to
sell people on Pentax was that In Camera IS is a marketing gimmick.
This is circular.

You also seem to be complaining about the lack of long glass for full
frame while completely forgetting that the FA lenses were full frame
and seem to be re-incarnated in a digital format ala the recent 200
and 300mm lenses.

Then you append a long list of links about the advatanges of a full
frame sensor which is a new issue to the above thread and entirely
tangential and has nothing to do with the argument on in camera
versus in lens IS.

I have resisted commenting on your logic in other threads but now I
am really having a hard time.

Join the club

. That and the very selective quoting have me almost thinking he's just trolling.

Voff · Apr 29, 2008

philbarton said:
For action shooting;
no alternative. For long and heavy lenses, no alternative. The
body; and an on-off switch.

What are you smoking? I have a Pentax 600/4 lens. It costed me brand new one thrid of the price for a new Canon IS 600/4 lens. It is image stabilized and I use it for action photography sucessfully. Why is that no alternative?

Voff · Apr 29, 2008

philbarton said:
Think of it this way ... brand loyalty is really about the mount you
bought all of those LBA lenses to fit.

Sure and my 600/4 lens turned into an image stabilized one for about $50 (along with all my other lenses). No such luck if I used Canon....
It would have costed me approximately $20 000 at least.....
No alternative my ass.....

Voff · Apr 29, 2008

cycoj said:
Who is they? C/N? It does not make sense for Pentax to make in-lens
IS then, because I'd mean either to license C/N patents, or to work
around them, both options not really desirable.

Actually Pentax optical IS date from about 1989; both telephotos and zoom lenses. In fact Canon IS patents refer to the older Pentax patents.

cycoj said:
There is also no
compelling reason why. So far there is no reasons suggesting that
in-body IS couldn't be done with a FF sensor, so why not use the
existing technology Pentax/Samsung already own.

Actually, Pentax have patented sensor based IS for a full frame sensor. Sony will aparently market one soon (no idea whose patents the Sony is based on)

yesman12 · Apr 29, 2008

All of phils responses on this thread are high on emotion and low on facts.
--
Best regards
Nick

Russell Evans · Apr 29, 2008

philbarton said:
http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/account-activity/e3icbb206706db0dba27ade4d9bf3c58b10

"We're
looking forward to breathing new life into the brand. They've been a
little quiet and lacked a strong Web presence."

In case you can't find a marketing speech translator:

"We're looking forward to breathing new life into the brand" translates into "We're looking forward to blowing smoke up peoples @ss so get those boring engineers out of the way"

"They've been a little quiet and lacked a strong Web presence." translates into We haven't made any money from them and their web page doesn't have a useless flash intro or annoying slow translations from one page to another. We figure to soak Pentax for few million for making their site pretty pointless and to attract people that usually say something like "Oh, look at the pretty lights"

People on this forum have complained about Pentax marketing, I say, be careful what you wish for.

Thank you
Russell

philbarton · Apr 29, 2008

Russell Evans said:
philbarton said:

http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/account-activity/e3icbb206706db0dba27ade4d9bf3c58b10

"We're
looking forward to breathing new life into the brand. They've been a
little quiet and lacked a strong Web presence."

Click to expand...

In case you can't find a marketing speech translator:
"We're looking forward to breathing new life into the brand"
translates into "We're looking forward to blowing smoke up peoples
@ss so get those boring engineers out of the way"

"They've been a little quiet and lacked a strong Web presence."
translates into We haven't made any money from them and their web
page doesn't have a useless flash intro or annoying slow translations
from one page to another. We figure to soak Pentax for few million
for making their site pretty pointless and to attract people that
usually say something like "Oh, look at the pretty lights"

People on this forum have complained about Pentax marketing, I say,
be careful what you wish for.

Thank you
Russell

=========

Ned Bunnell, who as I recall took over Pentax USA in 2007, is a very sharp guy, and his real mission is to straighten out sales channels and do an internal reorganization. An agency move is pretty standard in these cases.

Frankly, I don't think that their primary problem is marketing or channels right now - it's the product cycle, and the ability to field a range of cameras including a high-end attention-getter. And, of course, extending appeal beyond the legacy owners in enough volume to make dealers consider giving them shelf and ad space.

I doubt that they can penetrate the big-box and chain stores; as larger producers are more amenable to constructing "specials" which those stores use in ads to draw customer traffic.

"Quality" is no longer a discriminating characteristic, when the majors are flooding the sub-$1000 space with models to fight each other.

Russell Evans · Apr 29, 2008

philbarton said:
Frankly, I don't think that their primary problem is marketing or
channels right now - it's the product cycle, and the ability to field
a range of cameras including a high-end attention-getter. And, of
course, extending appeal beyond the legacy owners in enough volume to
make dealers consider giving them shelf and ad space.

You can't bet word of mouth for generating sales. One of the hardest to get and best selling consumer electronics gadgets isn't on any store shelf, rarely is available on the Internet, and has never been a loss leader in any weekly ad. Nintendo like Pentax only has two models and neither is a high end attention getter, just two really hot sellers.

If IQ is to photography, what fun is to electronic games, maybe Pentax is doing the right thing, regardless of what Sony, and Microsoft are doing, oops, that should be Canon and Nikon.

Thank you
Russell

cycoj · Apr 29, 2008

Voff said:
cycoj said:

Who is they? C/N? It does not make sense for Pentax to make in-lens
IS then, because I'd mean either to license C/N patents, or to work
around them, both options not really desirable.

Click to expand...

Actually Pentax optical IS date from about 1989; both telephotos and
zoom lenses. In fact Canon IS patents refer to the older Pentax
patents.

Pentax made optical IS lenses? I never heard of them, for 35mm or MF?

I just had a quick google and it seems the water is pretty murky around the patents for in-lens IS and who owns what. It seems you are correct however that Asahi has some optical IS patents. It still seems that Pentax would have to work around C/N patents if they were to build IS lenses.

Voff said:
Voff said:

There is also no
compelling reason why. So far there is no reasons suggesting that
in-body IS couldn't be done with a FF sensor, so why not use the
existing technology Pentax/Samsung already own.

Click to expand...

Actually, Pentax have patented sensor based IS for a full frame
sensor. Sony will aparently market one soon (no idea whose patents
the Sony is based on)

My point exactly, why should Pentax try to develop a new in-lens IS system, possibly having to work around existing C/N patents, when they have existing technology for in-body IS, which should also work for FF.

Lance B · Apr 29, 2008

philbarton said:
Lance B said:

Phil, looking at your recent posts, both in number and with a general
aire of and dissatisfaction, you would have to agree that your seem
to have an obsession against them.
--
Lance B

Click to expand...

-----------------------

Meet the competition ... just looking at the recent reviews, and this
is what any maker's in-body IS is up against:

http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/5116/lens-test-canon-ef-s-18-55mm-f35-56-is.html

"An image-stabilized Canon lens for just $175? No, you're not
dreaming. This compact zoom really is all that."

IN THE LAB: SQF performance was in the Excellent range at all focal
lengths, indicating high degrees of sharpness and contrast. In DxO
Analyzer 2.0 tests, we found Visible barrel distortion at 18mm
(0.55%) -- above-average control for a sub-$200 kit lens and far
better than the non-IS version of the lens. At the mid-range zoom
settings, distortion at infinity was controlled to a degree even some
pro zooms can't match: Imperceptible barreling at 35mm (0.02%) and
Imperceptible pincushion distortion at 55mm (0.06%).

And do you know why Canon has made this lens? Because Pentax and Sony made in camera SR and Canon had to make an affordable kit lens to compete. Imagine if Pentax and Sony never decided to do in camera SR. Canon would never have been forced to make an affordable IS lens. Kudos Pentax ans Sony!

No matter how you cut it, Pentax's move to in camera SR was a master stroke and one that I still feel is better as it makes any lens SR compatible and it has made the opposition stand up and take note. Great work Pentax.

Do not dismiss in camera SR as inferior in the mistaken belief that IS is better due to the fact that it has been around longer. IS was designed when film was around as they had to make it that way as there was no way to have in camera SR. It was something they had to do rather than what was actually the best option.

philbarton said:
Using DxO's blur analysis software, our tests of the Image Stabilizer
found that three different shooters could take critically sharp
images at shutter speeds between 2.5 and 3 stops slower than without
IS. This should open new avenues for Rebel shooters in low-light
situations.

(now check the weights and dimensions)

Olympus E-420 130 x 91 x 53 mm (5.1 x 3.6 x 2.1 in) 436 g (1.0 lb)
Canon EOS 450D 129 x 98 x 62 mm (5.1 x 3.9 x 2.4 in) 524 g (1.2 lb)
Nikon D60 126 x 94 x 64 mm (5.0 x 3.7 x 2.5 in) 536 g (1.2 lb)
Canon EOS 400D 127 x 94 x 65 mm (5.0 x 3.7 x 2.5 in) 556 g (1.2 lb)
Olympus E-510 136 x 92 x 68 mm (5.4 x 3.6 x 2.7 in) 562 g (1.2 lb)
Sony DSLR-A350 131 x 99 x 71 mm (5.2 x 3.7 x 2.8 in) 664 g (1.5 lb)
Pentax K200D 134 x 95 x 74 mm (5.2 x 3.7 x 2.9 in) 694 g (1.5 lb)

(In part, that's the in-body IS penalty, which the Sony also has)

Rubbish. The Olympus is a smaller sensored camera so there is a reason it is smaller and lighter. Smaller VF and associated components.

Pentax has a much better build quality than those you have shown as examples. You cannot simply say that it is the in camera SR that is causing this weight disadvantage - if you actually do believe that it is a disadvantage - as there are many other factors that make up this discrepancy. A mightily long bow to draw without facts to back up your statement.
--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b

musicman67 · Apr 29, 2008

Pentax has great glass. That is a granted. Until Pentax makes a camera that is out of many peoples price range than they can't expect to compete. The K20 may not be in everyone's price range, but it certainly is more so than a $1,800 D300 or a $5,000 D3. If there is nothing to move up to, then people will possibly move out. Until the K20 came, the K10 was top. Now the K10 is going for under $800.

LordAwesome · Apr 29, 2008

Okay, so I have not checked this for a few days, but a lot of the arguments have been full of logical fallacies....you guys create straw men and beg the question. Come on.

In body IS has been slightly helpful for me shooting in low light situations with my older film lenses.

I have never used a system with in lens IS so I can't make any comparisons.

I also suggest that if you have not used both systems personally that you not try to debate it....

Speak from experience and lets not get too caught up in the small details.

Don't forget what cameras are for.....taking photos.
--
Hello!

LordAwesome · Apr 30, 2008

probably
--
Hello!

yesman12 · Apr 30, 2008

To be honest, any individuals use of either a canon in Lens system or a Pentax in Camera system will not provide as reliable or bias free results as a thrid party test.
--
Best regards
Nick

maxpayne · Apr 30, 2008

I'm on the lookout for a new system and was considering Pentax... till I hit the glass barrier. I really don't have much choice but to lean towards Nikon or Canon.

For me, Nikon has the 16-85 and 70-300 both affordable, with VRII . Canon has similar lens choices. Moreover, auto focus and ISO performance is better on the N/C bodies.

As much as I'd want to have a weather sealed body and 14 mp sensor, reality bites, big time...

Bringing people over to Pentax.

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Keyboard shortcuts