In-depth K100D SR Test / Review!!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RiceHigh, Sep 24, 2006.

  1. RiceHigh

    RiceHigh Guest

    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/K100D/RiceHighs_Pentax_K100D_Full_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
    RiceHigh, Sep 24, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RiceHigh

    POTD.com.au Guest

    "RiceHigh" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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/K100D/RiceHighs_Pentax_K100D_Full_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??
    POTD.com.au, Sep 24, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RiceHigh

    RiceHigh Guest

    POTD.com.au 寫é“:
    > 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
    RiceHigh, Sep 24, 2006
    #3
  4. 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
    David J Taylor, Sep 24, 2006
    #4
  5. "David J Taylor" <-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
    David J. Littleboy, Sep 24, 2006
    #5
  6. "RiceHigh" <> wrote in message
    news:...


    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.......
    William Graham, Sep 24, 2006
    #6
  7. David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "David J Taylor"
    > <-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
    David J Taylor, Sep 24, 2006
    #7
  8. RiceHigh

    POTD.com.au Guest

    "RiceHigh" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    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.
    POTD.com.au, Sep 25, 2006
    #8
  9. RiceHigh

    ASAAR Guest

    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.
    ASAAR, Sep 25, 2006
    #9
  10. RiceHigh

    Advocate Guest


    > 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.
    Advocate, Sep 25, 2006
    #10
  11. RiceHigh

    ASAAR Guest

    On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 04:14:07 GMT, Advocate wrote:

    >> 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.


    Many people have taken pictures without realizing that their
    cameras hadn't been loaded with film. Half a bazillion test photos
    might have been taken without realizing that IS can be turned on or
    OFF. A bazillion photographers make similar mistakes every year!
    ASAAR, Sep 25, 2006
    #11
  12. RiceHigh

    POTD.com.au Guest

    "Advocate" <> wrote in message
    news:jIIRg.67774$aJ.38590@attbi_s21...
    >
    >> 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.
    >


    Well der!!!! Naturally the tests I am referring to were conducted at
    shutter speeds were the IS would have no discernible effect with regard to
    movement.... I was purely testing the image quality of the optics. (both
    IS on and off just to make sure)
    POTD.com.au, Sep 25, 2006
    #12
  13. RiceHigh

    ian Guest

    "Advocate" <> wrote in message
    news:jIIRg.67774$aJ.38590@attbi_s21...
    :
    : > 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.

    If anything IS lenses would take slightly worse photos. Having one element
    moving about is going to mean a less than perfectly straight light path.
    Unless you are using a slow shutter speed IS is not necessary. Given that
    70-200 is portrait focal length territory IS still isn't that great cos your
    human subjects will show movement at slow shutter speeds and IS only
    compensates for camera movement.
    ian, Sep 25, 2006
    #13
  14. RiceHigh

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "ian" <> writes:
    > If anything IS lenses would take slightly worse photos. Having one element
    > moving about is going to mean a less than perfectly straight light path.


    Having any optics at all means a less than perfectly straight light path.
    That was the whole point, I thought.
    Paul Rubin, Sep 25, 2006
    #14
  15. ASAAR wrote:
    []
    > 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.


    What happens with a shifting lens, like a Perspective Control lens?

    David
    David J Taylor, Sep 25, 2006
    #15
  16. "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
    wrote:
    > ASAAR wrote:
    > []
    >> 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.

    >
    > What happens with a shifting lens, like a Perspective Control lens?


    If you hold the film and lens planes stationary and shift the lens within
    the original lens plane, the amount of keystoning remains the same. The
    shift is really only for framing the desired image; the keystoning is
    eliminated by having the film and lens planes be parallel to the subject;
    the shift brings the part of the subject you want to image onto the
    film/sensor.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Sep 25, 2006
    #16
  17. POTD.com.au wrote:
    > "Advocate" <> wrote in message
    > news:jIIRg.67774$aJ.38590@attbi_s21...
    >>> 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.
    >>

    >
    > Well der!!!! Naturally the tests I am referring to were conducted at
    > shutter speeds were the IS would have no discernible effect with regard to
    > movement.... I was purely testing the image quality of the optics. (both
    > IS on and off just to make sure)


    Ah, I see said the blind man as he picked up his hammer and saw.... I,
    too misinterpreted what your point was.

    Thanks for clarifying.


    --
    john mcwilliams
    John McWilliams, Sep 25, 2006
    #17
  18. RiceHigh

    Advocate Guest

    >> Well der!!!! Naturally the tests I am referring to were conducted at
    >> shutter speeds were the IS would have no discernible effect with regard
    >> to movement.... I was purely testing the image quality of the optics.
    >> (both IS on and off just to make sure)

    >
    > Ah, I see said the blind man as he picked up his hammer and saw.... I, too
    > misinterpreted what your point was.
    >

    I had assumed that was what he "ment" to say.
    Advocate, Sep 25, 2006
    #18
  19. RiceHigh

    Peter Chant Guest

    Paul Rubin wrote:


    > Having any optics at all means a less than perfectly straight light path.
    > That was the whole point, I thought.



    Pinhole anyone!

    Quoting well out of context.

    --
    http://www.petezilla.co.uk
    Peter Chant, Sep 25, 2006
    #19
  20. RiceHigh

    ASAAR Guest

    On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 15:02:41 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

    >> 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.

    >
    > What happens with a shifting lens, like a Perspective Control lens?


    Probably the same thing I'm suggesting happens with IS correction.
    A very slight amount of additional image distortion, but probably
    such as small amount as to be hard to notice, and in any case,
    completely swamped by the benefit gained by using such a lens to
    reduce or eliminate perspective problems. I'm not suggesting, as
    the OP appears to be, that the addition of a theoretical amount of
    additional distortion is worth worrying about, since it would have
    to be large enough to make a noticeable difference in the images,
    and I don't think that it's of sufficient magnitude to do that.
    ASAAR, Sep 25, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Guest

    test test test test test test test

    Guest, Jul 2, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    892
    halfalifer
    Jul 2, 2003
  2. HRosita

    Canon 300D in depth review

    HRosita, Sep 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    262
    Todd Walker
    Sep 6, 2003
  3. deryck  lant

    Nikon D2X: Full In-Depth Review

    deryck lant, Jun 2, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    333
    Skip M
    Jun 3, 2005
  4. RiceHigh

    Pentax K100D Full Measurbation Review

    RiceHigh, Sep 10, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    303
    RiceHigh
    Sep 10, 2006
  5. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Pentax K100D Infrared Test

    Wayne J. Cosshall, Feb 17, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    1,047
    Bandicoot
    Feb 25, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page