helltormentor
Leading Member
Although the Olympus IBIS is breathtakingly good, I found the Sony IBIS less than stellar. I'm wondering how effective the Pentax SR is. I'd appreciate all feedback from Pentax users with regard to SR.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
How effective the Pentax SR is?
- Thread starter helltormentor
- Start date
MJSfoto1956
Leading Member
I have found Pentax K-3ii SR to be better than any Nikon/Nikkor, Canon, or Olympus M45 I have ever rented. That doesn't mean it is objectively "better" or that CaNikon is "worse" -- I just found it to deliver more "keepers" with what lenses I tested. I'm convinced that Pentax engineers know what they are doing.
YMMV
Michael
www.jmichaelsullivan.com
YMMV
Michael
www.jmichaelsullivan.com
helltormentor
Leading Member
Can you please be a little more specific? How many stops do you get from SR with telephoto lenses? By the way, I am talking about pixel level sharpness not print size sharpness.
Thanks
infoomatic
Well-known member
I own the Sony A7 and various Pentax DSLRs, have rented Olympus Equipment only for a few days. My usage of Olympus is too short to really compare it with Pentax DSLRs, however I found the Pentax SR slightly better than that of the A7. I don't think Olympus offer better stabilisation than the Pentax (otherwise I would have realized and would have remembered a "wow"-effect on the Olympus setup)
On good days I manage to get down to 1/8th sec. on a Pentax APS-C camera and a 100mm lens attached, handhold, for a sharp picture.
Though this is no real-world example, have a look:
On good days I manage to get down to 1/8th sec. on a Pentax APS-C camera and a 100mm lens attached, handhold, for a sharp picture.
Though this is no real-world example, have a look:
Last edited:
Michael Garibaldi
Veteran Member
It works for me. One needs to make sure it has spun up properly which means ensuring the little hand icon is lit, and if using a non AF lens make sure to enter the correct focal length into the camera.
You can't see it working in the viewfinder which to me is not a bad thing as seeing how badly one is shaking is a good reminder to use good technique.
MJSfoto1956
Leading Member
The best I can offer is this test I did between a Nikon D800 + AF 80-400mm vs. Pentax K-3 + DA* 60-250mm
[IMG width="400px" alt="I tested these two systems side by side mostly handheld to evaluate the number of "keepers" "] I tested these two systems side by side mostly handheld to evaluate the number of "keepers"
Some representative sample images from about 100 images I compared (neither the best nor the worst of the bunch, just some that I published. Frankly if you find something when pixel peeping that supports or contradicts my assertion it won't amount to anything other than your opinion: the overall whole of the experience is what I evaluated not just these two scenes):
YMMV
Michael
ozdean
Forum Pro
Very impressive Michael especially seeing that is against a FF D800.
helltormentor
Leading Member
Honestly, the K-1 is growing on me but I want to know the strengths and weaknesses of the system before getting into it. What Olympus are you referring to? I had the opportunity to play with the E-M5 II and it was eerily stable. On the other hand, I was not impressed by the stabilization of the A7II at all.
MJSfoto1956
Leading Member
Honestly the best advise I can give is for you to rent the gear before buying. I can't tell you how many times I've rented something "I was sure" I was going to like, only to discover that I didn't like it at all. In short, I consider renting before buying a form of insurance. Thank God we have multiple resources where we can rent gear these days. And as you can see, it is possible to compare apples and oranges (e.g. FX vs. DX) as long as your goal is the "overall" experience being compared and not obsessing too much about pixel peeping.
YMMV
Michael
YMMV
Michael
falconeyes
Senior Member
I once did a detailed analysis with multiple bodies, lenses, shooters and shooting situations.
The body was a Pentax K-7 and I would summarize my findings as about 2.5 stops improvement. Note that I defined criteria which are quite a bit harder to meet than CIPA criteria which are pretty weak. You easily find my work using Google, I guess.
Also note, that Pentax SR kept improving over K-5, K-5II, K-3, K-3II and now possibly K-1.
One difference wrt lens-based IBIS or sensor-based IBIS with EVF is that sensor-based IBIS with an SLR won't stabilize the viewfinder image and doesn't help with AF performance.
--
Falk Lumo
Last edited:
emem
Senior Member
I have both the Nikon 80-400 AF-S VR and the Pentax DA*60-250 lenses. I also have a K-3 but use the D750 in place of the D800. The Nikon kit in your test is a good 600gms heavier than the Pentax kit. I find I can handhold the Pentax for a while but my Nikon combo (at around 0.5kg heavier and most of it is in the lens) gets a little tiring quite quickly. I suspect that weight difference may have an influence on your results. But again, as I have commented here before, the inconsistency of my focus using the K-3 compared to the D750, which gives me quite consistent AF, makes it no contest.The best I can offer is this test I did between a Nikon D800 + AF 80-400mm vs. Pentax K-3 + DA* 60-250mm
I tested these two systems side by side mostly handheld to evaluate the number of "keepers"
Some representative sample images from about 100 images I compared (neither the best nor the worst of the bunch, just some that I published. Frankly if you find something when pixel peeping that supports or contradicts my assertion it won't amount to anything other than your opinion: the overall whole of the experience is what I evaluated not just these two scenes):
In general, the D800 system gave me about 6 out of 10 keepers as the light faded at sunset whereas the Pentax system gave me about 8 out of 10. The two systems were "about the same" in bright light with the Pentax delivering ever so slightly more "keepers". My short experience with the K-3ii is that it would perform even better.
In your test, what you are really testing is your ability to handhold a particular rig, not the effectiveness of the shake resistance.
--
Mike McEnaney. (emem)
www.veritasmea.com
BobORama
Senior Member
The Pentax stabilization technology is fairly impressive, and they have emplotyed it to do a number of other things besides just image stabilization. The lack of a stabilized OVF is compensated for by correction for rotation about the optical axis. The torque of pressing the shutter, for example.
-- Bob
http://bob-o-rama.smugmug.com -- Photos
http://www.vimeo.com/boborama/videos -- Videos
http://blog.trafficshaper.com -- Blog
northcoastgreg
Well-known member
I can only compare the K-5iis with the Olympus EM-5. I, too, have found the stabilization on the Olympus to be quite impressive. At wide to normal focal lengths, I find the EM-5 to be flat out better than the Pentax K-5iis, and the EM-5 has evolved into my hand-held camera for shooting at such focal lengths (whereas the K-5iis is mostly used on a tripod). At 12mm on the EM-5, I can get sharp shots at nearly half a second, whereas I struggle to get sharp shots even at 1/20th second with the DA 21 on the K-5iis. However, at longer focal lengths, I don't notice much of a difference.
Of course, the usual YMMV proviso applies.
Now that Pentax, in the new K-1, has introduced 5-axis, I'm hoping this will change. At some point, I assume this improved SR will migrate into Pentax's APS-C bodies, and at that point I can dispense with the EM-5 for hand-holding work (I have a strong preference for Pentax glass over Olympus glass, in any case).
Of course, the usual YMMV proviso applies.
Now that Pentax, in the new K-1, has introduced 5-axis, I'm hoping this will change. At some point, I assume this improved SR will migrate into Pentax's APS-C bodies, and at that point I can dispense with the EM-5 for hand-holding work (I have a strong preference for Pentax glass over Olympus glass, in any case).
Ian Stuart Forsyth
Senior Member
I did a little test using LV with the K5 300 mm F2.8 and mounted with a D800 200-400 F4 VRII in crop mode at 300mm for the same FOV in the test
https://isfphotography.smugmug.com/photos/i-Kf5MMM9/0/640/i-Kf5MMM9-640.mp4
the clock with the gold tint is the 200-400VR and the silver is K5SR
I find that the SR has a harder time with the quick jitters during the test and also in the field.
Also worth noting is having VR for long lens work on tripod is something that I cannot do without and SR with long lenses on a tripod is less effective. and also VR with MLU for longer shutter speeds on windy day is a added feature that often comes in handy
--
The Camera is only a tool, photography is deciding how to use it.
The hardest part about capturing wildlife is not the photographing portion; it’s getting them to sign a model release
ASR45
Forum Pro
Thats what i have at the moment the D750 + 80-400VR i concur AF is snappy and IQ up there, as for being heavy no heavier than other stuff i have used, but carrying all day can be a bit tiring. The best lens i have to say that i have used has to be the 100-400 MK2 canon, its far quicker than my Nikon lens, as for weather sealing i have to give that to pentax, although my canon FF have a certain amount of sealing, i would not risk it in a down pour.I have both the Nikon 80-400 AF-S VR and the Pentax DA*60-250 lenses. I also have a K-3 but use the D750 in place of the D800. The Nikon kit in your test is a good 600gms heavier than the Pentax kit. I find I can handhold the Pentax for a while but my Nikon combo (at around 0.5kg heavier and most of it is in the lens) gets a little tiring quite quickly. I suspect that weight difference may have an influence on your results. But again, as I have commented here before, the inconsistency of my focus using the K-3 compared to the D750, which gives me quite consistent AF, makes it no contest.The best I can offer is this test I did between a Nikon D800 + AF 80-400mm vs. Pentax K-3 + DA* 60-250mm
I tested these two systems side by side mostly handheld to evaluate the number of "keepers"
Some representative sample images from about 100 images I compared (neither the best nor the worst of the bunch, just some that I published. Frankly if you find something when pixel peeping that supports or contradicts my assertion it won't amount to anything other than your opinion: the overall whole of the experience is what I evaluated not just these two scenes):
In general, the D800 system gave me about 6 out of 10 keepers as the light faded at sunset whereas the Pentax system gave me about 8 out of 10. The two systems were "about the same" in bright light with the Pentax delivering ever so slightly more "keepers". My short experience with the K-3ii is that it would perform even better.
In your test, what you are really testing is your ability to handhold a particular rig, not the effectiveness of the shake resistance.
--
Alan.
Great photography is about depth of feeling, not depth of field.
- Peter Adams
You don't take a photograph, you make it. - Ansel Adams.
Believe in Karma.
helltormentor
Leading Member
I found your test. Thanks for the information. Your conclusion agrees with what I learned from playing with some sensor based stabilized cameras. I found the E-M5 II IBIS hard to beat. The point is that the E-M5II has been rated as 5 stops compensation by CIPA and the K-1 has reached the same score (There are only 2 systems with the score of 5). I do not know whether this means they are equally good or there are other factors which might make them different with regard to the defectiveness of IBIS. If the K-1 is anything close to the E-M5II, it makes it a no brainier.
Gerry Winterbourne
Forum Pro
A general comment first. A few tears ago there was a website created testing the effectiveness of IS (the Canon system) with the intention of going on to VR (Nikon) later. Unfortunately, after existing for about a year the sire disappeared. However, the early work showed one important fact: the effectiveness of IS depended on how steady the user could shoot without using IS. This seems counter-intuitive (and unfair) - the steadier you can hold a camera the more stops improvement you get with IS.
I mention this because it means you have to be careful how you interpret any anecdotal answers including mine.
I've tested the SR on all my Pentax bodies that give it, starting with the K10D, then K20D, K-5 and K-3. SR has improved slowly but steadily, so I'd guess that the K-1 is better still.
My method is to find a steady distant target and take shots without SR at slower speeds until about 80% (4 out if 5 at last) look steady with the rest showing motion blur. That shows the speed at which I can reasonably rely on getting a steady shot without SR. Then I switch SR on and reduce speed to the same 80% success rate. That gives the improvement from DR. Note that what matters here is (a) that I find a visible break between steady and not steady without SR and (b) the same break with SR. It doesn't particularly if I used 50:50 as long as I use the same for both.
I repeat the test several times. I do it for several lenses. As you can imagine, this gives a lot of shots which I mostly delete afterwards. I do have a few that I've saved, though. These are from my K-7 but they are typical. The dead tree is about 100m from where I shoot.
These are 100% crops converted direct from raw. Don't look at sharpness as such but the obvious motion blur in the first (non-SR) that's not there in the second (SR). They are in Tv mode at ISO100 so aperture varies to give effectively equal exposure.
These aren't shots at the limit of steadiness, just a couple I happened to save. With that camera (K-7) I found about 2.1/2 stops was a reliable result with some up to about 3.1/2. My latest (K-3) gives about 3.1/2 stops reliably with some up to about 5.
On the basis of my experience I'd be pretty confident that the K-1 will do what is claimed for it. But, as I said above, beware of putting too much reliance on individual reports.
..
--
---
Gerry
___________________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
Galleries by Gerry Winterbourne
www.pbase.com
MJSfoto1956
Leading Member
I will state again that I did extensive testing between the two systems. And while the majority were indeed handheld, quite a large percentage were "supported" by fences, trees, cars, and other ad-hoc supports (which mirrors how I shoot in the field). I did tripod testing as well. And I stick by my analysis: the Pentax K-3 system -- for my shooting style -- consistently produced more "keepers" than the equivalent Nikon D800 system using the stated lenses under identical conditions.
YMMV
Michael
P.S. in a similar test I determined that the D800 out-performed the K-3 with every wide-angle lens I could test with, again using my shooting style. Which is why to this day I shoot Pentax K-3 for all my long shots as well as macro and stick with my Nikon D800 for all my normal to wide shots.
Last edited:
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum