Pentax K100D SR (shake reduction) examples

[josphy]

Decided to do a little bit more thorough testing on my new K100D's shake

reduction (SR) feature. Obviously the idea was to take a series of shots at

increasingly slower shutter speeds with SR turned on and off. Also, I had the

bright idea to do this in the continuous shooting mode.

<p>

My reasoning for this was that I have used this in the past as sort of a "poor

man's SR". It works amazingly well -- out of a burst of 3 or 4 shots, you will

undoubtedly get one that is noticeably sharper than the rest. I felt that this

was the best way to even the playing field and hopefully make sure that the

shots represented the least amount of shake that I could possibly introduce.

<p>

These were shot at the the long end of my zoom (55mm) and focused at about

1.5feet. Shots went from 1/20th to 1/10th to 1/6th to 1/3rd to 2/3rds of a

second.<p>

 

Full shot for reference:<p>

 

<a href=" title="Photo

Sharing"><img src="http://static.flickr.com/83/218142320_bd9be7920c.jpg"

width="500" height="332" alt="fullmusic" /></a><p>

 

The results (SR on the left, non-SR on the right):<p>

<a href=" title="Photo

Sharing"><img src="http://static.flickr.com/61/218137431_f8570d82c3_b.jpg"

width="614" height="1024" alt="SRtestweb" /></a><p>

 

Keep in mind that 1/20th of a second is already starting out pretty slow

especially considering the focal length (~80mm equiv.). I'll just let the

results speak for themselves.<p>

 

I will however add one thing that the results here do not convey which is that

on the burst of 3 SR shots, the results were overall pretty consistent between

the 3 shots. That is, one shot was noticeably better, but not really heads above

the rest. On the non-SR shots, aside from the first couple, the shots were more

all over the place. By that I mean, one shot would be more or less acceptable

and the other two would be MUCH worse (which further proves my point above that

the "poor man's SR" is better than no SR.

[maurice_audibert]

Thanks for posting these very interesting examples, Joseph. K100D SR a little out my financial possibilities, but worth considering.

[georg_kern]

I find the 1/10th examples quite interesting. Without comparison, many people would consider the non-SR shot as "acceptabel sharp", but the SR-example shows, that it can be much better.

So, it might be a good idea to leave the SR "on" all the time, even when you think you do not absolutely need it. According to Pentax, the SR conumes very few energy, and adds no shutter lag.

 

Regards

Georg

[josphy]

Well one thing that I thought was interesting was that I was able to get a non-SR shot at 1/6th that was actually a little sharper than the best non-SR shot at 1/10th. I think what that demonstrates is that without the SR on, there is definitely an element of luck involved. Like I did in my test, with a burst of 3 or 4 shots, you may end up with one that is sharp. The SR adds consistency.

 

And yeah -- if it's adding this much sharpness at these low shutter speeds, it certainly can't hurt anything in the usual speeds either. According to Pentax it doesn't affect battery life, so it's staying on all the time on my camera.

[peter_a._klein]

Joseph: Is that a Bartok string quartet in the examples? :-)

 

The K100D is beginning to look more and more tempting. Especially for available light fans. I can hand-hold a Leica at 1/8 second and get usable shots (and a few more unusable ones). The shake reduction would probably increase the percentage of usable shots and truly sharp ones significantly. It may help reduce the effects of vibration due to mirror slap, helping make an SLR more like an RF for slow-speed shooting.

 

--Peter

[josphy]

Peter, it's an Allen string quartet. Towards the end of a ditty I wrote in college, "Variants on a Theme of Schoenberg". Probably heavily Bartok influenced though.

 

But yeah, I think this is a monster camera for anyone into available light shooting. I haven't really done a thorough testing of the high ISOs, but noise looks pretty reasonable. I only have the kit lens right now which is slow (to me anyway) 3.5-5.6, so I can't wait to pick up at least a 50mm/1.8 or 1.4. Imagine getting consistently sharp results at 1/8 or 1/6second w/ a fast prime and ISO 800, 1600 or even 3200.

[ben conover]

Joseph, that's a very interesting quartet. Funny to see blurred photos of music, reminds me of playing when rather...drunk.

 

Anyhow, I agree the process of taking a few shots and getting one goodun is sensible, I'll try it. Seems the SR will be a very useful tool for concert photography. I hope to buy a Pentax dslr soon, just selling my trusty old LX and buying a few more primes.

 

Cheers from Ireland.

[del_gray]

JOseph, thanks for the test - it is indeed interesting for those of us who like small fast primes and available light. Just to be clear, though, are you saying that the shots you chose to post here are the BEST of each burst? Is that true for both the SR and non-SR shots? Thanks!

 

Del

[josphy]

>Just to be clear, though, are you saying that the shots you chose to >post here are the BEST of each burst? Is that true for both the SR and >non-SR shots?

 

Del, yes that's eactly right. I shot a burst of 3 or 4 shots at each shutter speed with both SR and non-SR. Then I posted the best shot out of each group for both SR and non-SR.

 

The other little note I added was that with the SR shots, the shots were pretty consistent within each burst. There would be one shot that would be marginally sharper than the other 2 or 3, so I used that one, but the difference was not as great. So you could say that the SR gave pretty consistent results. In the case of the non-SR, out of each group there would be one shot that was just obviously much better (even if only marginally acceptable as you got towards the slowest shutter speeds) than the other two. So basically it was just a matter of luck that you got a semi-useable shot and the others in the group were basically mush.

 

Hope that makes sense!