Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > In-depth K100D SR Test / Review!!

Reply
Thread Tools

In-depth K100D SR Test / Review!!

 
 
RiceHigh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-24-2006
Since I have received four emails within the last two days on the SR
issue, I opt to update my review to elaborate my observations on the
Pentax latest SR system:-

http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh/K1...ll_Review.html

Click on the "SR Comments" to see, I have tried to write in (much) more
details for what I know and experienced.

p.s. Warning: If you want to see those typical comparison pairs of
shots which "prove" how SR works with "On" and "Off" comparisons, which
have being seen everywhere on the net and in numerious magazine tests,
you will probably be greatly disappointed. So, please don't read on if
you really expect for those things or alike.

p.s.2: I have made short comments about the drawback of Canon and
Nikon's IS/VR system, too.

RiceHigh
http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
POTD.com.au
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-24-2006

"RiceHigh" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> Since I have received four emails within the last two days on the SR
> issue, I opt to update my review to elaborate my observations on the
> Pentax latest SR system:-
>
> http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh/K1...ll_Review.html
>
> Click on the "SR Comments" to see, I have tried to write in (much) more
> details for what I know and experienced.
>
> p.s. Warning: If you want to see those typical comparison pairs of
> shots which "prove" how SR works with "On" and "Off" comparisons, which
> have being seen everywhere on the net and in numerious magazine tests,
> you will probably be greatly disappointed. So, please don't read on if
> you really expect for those things or alike.
>
> p.s.2: I have made short comments about the drawback of Canon and
> Nikon's IS/VR system, too.
>
> RiceHigh
> http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh
>


> p.s.2: I have made short comments about the drawback of Canon and
> Nikon's IS/VR system, too.


and the basis for the comment....

"Same applies to Canon and Nikon's IS and VR system here, the additional
correction IS/VR lens will simply introduce extra errors optically,
undoubtedly."

....is??


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
RiceHigh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-24-2006

POTD.com.au 寫道:
> and the basis for the comment....
>
> "Same applies to Canon and Nikon's IS and VR system here, the additional
> correction IS/VR lens will simply introduce extra errors optically,
> undoubtedly."
>
> ...is??


IS and VR systems employ an *extra* correction lens element to
compensate for hand shake. Since there is no perfect optics on this
planet, *extra* error must be introduced, as a result.

RiceHigh
http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh

 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-24-2006
RiceHigh wrote:
> POTD.com.au ??:
>> and the basis for the comment....
>>
>> "Same applies to Canon and Nikon's IS and VR system here, the
>> additional correction IS/VR lens will simply introduce extra errors
>> optically, undoubtedly."
>>
>> ...is??

>
> IS and VR systems employ an *extra* correction lens element to
> compensate for hand shake. Since there is no perfect optics on this
> planet, *extra* error must be introduced, as a result.


Why do you assume that there is an extra element or group?

David


 
Reply With Quote
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-24-2006

"David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
wrote:
> RiceHigh wrote:
>> POTD.com.au ??:
>>> and the basis for the comment....
>>>
>>> "Same applies to Canon and Nikon's IS and VR system here, the
>>> additional correction IS/VR lens will simply introduce extra errors
>>> optically, undoubtedly."
>>>
>>> ...is??

>>
>> IS and VR systems employ an *extra* correction lens element to
>> compensate for hand shake. Since there is no perfect optics on this
>> planet, *extra* error must be introduced, as a result.

>
> Why do you assume that there is an extra element or group?


Maybe because the Canon 7-200/2.8 IS is the most complex lens Canon makes.

(But you do have a good point<g>. Still, I'd think that you'd have to design
the lens with IS in mind so that there is an appropriate group to move
around.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


 
Reply With Quote
 
William Graham
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-24-2006

"RiceHigh" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...


IS and VR systems employ an *extra* correction lens element to
compensate for hand shake. Since there is no perfect optics on this
planet, *extra* error must be introduced, as a result.

Also, the "IS" name is very misleading, since the lens has absolutely no
control over the motion of the subject. - It can only compensate (to some
degree) for camera motion. People who take these things to sporting events
will usually come home with lousy pictures.......


 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-24-2006
David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> <(E-Mail Removed)-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:

[]
>> Why do you assume that there is an extra element or group?

>
> Maybe because the Canon 7-200/2.8 IS is the most complex lens Canon
> makes.
> (But you do have a good point<g>. Still, I'd think that you'd have to
> design the lens with IS in mind so that there is an appropriate group
> to move around.)
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan


I would have thought that the last thing the lens designers wanted was to
introduce any unnecessary extra element or groups, and that by suitable
design one of the existing groups could become the moving element. Yes,
it might require slight changes in the lens design, though....... Of
course, lens design evolves and trade-offs change with time.

IANALD (I am not a lens designer).

David


 
Reply With Quote
 
POTD.com.au
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-25-2006

"RiceHigh" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...

POTD.com.au ??:
> and the basis for the comment....
>
> "Same applies to Canon and Nikon's IS and VR system here, the additional
> correction IS/VR lens will simply introduce extra errors optically,
> undoubtedly."
>
> ...is??


> IS and VR systems employ an *extra* correction lens element to
> compensate for hand shake. Since there is no perfect optics on this
> planet, *extra* error must be introduced, as a result.


> RiceHigh
> +http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh




Well EVERY lens is a handful of errors then, as no single element is
perfect..... nor are all elements the same.... so it could well be that a
Canon/Nikon lens with IS is still a truck load better than another
manufacture's lens without, because the Canon/Nikon offerings are better
optically to begin with.

Personally I owned two Canon 70-200 2.8 L lenses, one with IS and one
without. I shot a bazillion tests with those lenses and there was no, zero,
nada, zilch perceivable difference in the images they produced.


 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-25-2006
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 02:41:03 GMT, POTD.com.au wrote:

> Well EVERY lens is a handful of errors then, as no single element is
> perfect..... nor are all elements the same.... so it could well be that a
> Canon/Nikon lens with IS is still a truck load better than another
> manufacture's lens without, because the Canon/Nikon offerings are better
> optically to begin with.
>
> Personally I owned two Canon 70-200 2.8 L lenses, one with IS and one
> without. I shot a bazillion tests with those lenses and there was no, zero,
> nada, zilch perceivable difference in the images they produced.


I wonder if the more effective IS/VR is, the more it might
contribute a slight keystone distortion. This might occur not
specifically because an extra lens is used, as cameras that shift
the sensor instead could produce the same effect. I don't know if
the amount produced would be easily noticed, but if it's there, it
would probably be far less objectionable than the blur that would
have been in the image if IS/VR hadn't been used.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Advocate
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-25-2006

> Personally I owned two Canon 70-200 2.8 L lenses, one with IS and one
> without. I shot a bazillion tests with those lenses and there was no,
> zero, nada, zilch perceivable difference in the images they produced.


Paying extra money for a lens with IS would be a waste...correct? A
bazillion test photos can't be wrong.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax K100D Infrared Test Wayne J. Cosshall Digital Photography 20 02-25-2007 03:32 AM
Longish: Nikon D50 or Pentax K100D? Eric Babula Digital Photography 38 12-08-2006 09:08 AM
Pentax K100D Full Measurbation Review RiceHigh Digital Photography 0 09-10-2006 03:31 PM
Pentax K100D Digital SLR - any experiences with this model? J. F. Cornwall Digital Photography 9 07-29-2006 02:53 PM
test test test test test test test Computer Support 2 07-02-2003 06:02 PM



Advertisments