Monday, December 11, 2006

T.O.P. On In-Camera Image Stabilization

Mike Johnston at The Online Photographer had a great post this weekend about "In-Camera vs. In-Lens Image Stabilization." What the title should be is "Canon vs. In-Camera Stabilization," because Mike has come around to taking Canon to task for trying to argue it's way out of a difficult marketing issue (which Canon presented in their Rebel XTi White Paper PDF), namely that it won't concede that in-camera stabilization has benefits and that this isn't on their roadmap right now--at least until their marketshare is affected). Nikon is similarly in a fix because of the same issue. Both camera companies have cameras on the market that try to be inexpensive and tiny, but for low light performance they require heavy, expensive lenses.

However, Mike knows that Pentax is firmly entrenched with in-camera stabilization now that the K100D and K10D have been released. He calls it "the Pentax option." Here's what he has to say about the Nikon D40 in comparison:

T.O.P. says: Like a draft horse switching horseflies with its tail (again, I hope the good folks at Nikon will forgive my overly colorful locution), Nikon severely limited the lens compatibility of the D40 to try to encourage D40 buyers to stay away from pesky Tokina and Sigma et al. and buy real Nikkor lenses. The K10D, on the other hand, really makes sense with in-body IS (it calls its version SR, for Shake Reduction, unless I'm confused), because Pentax has the greatest range of body-lens compatibility of any manufacturer. You can't even autofocus on the D40 with an ordinary AF-"D" Nikkor, but you can get IS on the Pentax with any Pentax lens back to, and including, M42 screwmount lenses, regardless of what other automatic functions may or may not be compromised. For this reason, it really makes sense that Pentax chose to put its IS-type SR function in the body and not in the lens.

Link: T.O.P. More on In-Camera vs. In-Lens Image Stabilization


RiceHigh said...

Mike has actually told us (again) that something we all Pentaxians (or even non-Pentaxians) have known.

I don't think his new article contributes any new information there, IMHO.

Anyway, I know that Pentaxians would always like to see "positive" and favourable comments about the latest Pentax system, no matter it occurs repeatedly or not. :-)

Anonymous said...

Look at:

James said...

I'm very doubtful of the Canon assetion. If the image moves by a few pixel widths then it looks blurred. The old 1/focal length rule from 35mm days basically says you get sharp at that speed, and then more and more noticable blur. The idea that n stops slower than the "sharp" speed gives more image displacement with longer focal lengths is at the very least counter-intuitive, if not made up to suit the author's purpose.

All Labels For This Site (Alphabetical)

© 2006-2011 by OK1000 Pentax Blog. All rights reserved. OK1000 Pentax Blog is not affiliated with Pentax.