In camera vs in lens shake reduction..

[namasste]

I was all set to buy a new Rebel XTi or perhaps Nikon D80 when I happened up the K10D. Having no gear legacy with any of these, I am pretty free to choose as budget allows (which may rule out the D80 and definitely the Canon 30D). Anyway, I really got excited about the Pentax despite the lag in curb appeal found in the 2 "majors". The one hangup I have is the in camera shake reduction. Is it safe to say that while it gives you greater lens flexibility, it probably falls short of the lens based IS systems by a stop or two? By that I mean, would I see a little more advantage in how many effective stops I gain with a lens IS system over the in camera?

[mjs1973]

Going by what I have read, and heard (I don't owns any IS gear) you are correct. It seems that the lens based IS/VR systems work better than the camera body based systems, but they both have their strong and weak points.

The body based gives you more lens flexibility like you mention and turns all your lensed into stabilized lenses. They are also much more inexpensive.

The lens based systems will give you better performance, but you pay for that performance in both $ and extra weight.

I think a lot will also depend on what type of shooting you do. I think the lens based IS/VR sytems will far outperform the the body based systems when it comes to telephoto shooting. If you do a lot of shooting on the long end, I would consider the lens based system. Image stabilization isn't nearly as important when shooting wide angle, so if that's your thing, I would think the body based system would be fine.

[Didache]

I can't really comment on the lens based systems, but I can testify that the Pentax system works pretty well. I have a K10D and can shoot pretty consistently at 1/30 hand held with the standard lens, and 1/20 at a push.

Mike

[namasste]

I can't really comment on the lens based systems, but I can testify that the Pentax system works pretty well. I have a K10D and can shoot pretty consistently at 1/30 hand held with the standard lens, and 1/20 at a push.

Mike

Thanks guys. I was pretty much set to go get a 30D and just be done with it and now I am strongly rethinking the Pentax (as in I might go get one today since I can get $125 cash rebate from Pentax if I buy the grip too).

Ideally, I want something that is going to perform fairly well on all ends of the spectrum. I do some macro stuff but also shoot on the long end at times (would like to try to expand that area a bit). In the end, the Pentax seems like it offers more than the D80 or 30D (definitely more than the D40X or XTi). Is there anything negative I need to be aware of before I plunk down some coin?

[Didache]

namasste .. in the end you must get the camera that feels best to you. I can't really comment on Canon or Nikon, as I have always been a Pentax guy. I do know though that just about every reviewer going loves the K10D (as do I). The feature set is great too for the money - one reviewer called it a Nikon D200 feature set for a D80 price. It ain't perfect (no camera is!) but it's the best one I've ever used.

But, again, take advice but then go with the one you personally like.

Mike

[namasste]

namasste .. in the end you must get the camera that feels best to you. I can't really comment on Canon or Nikon, as I have always been a Pentax guy. I do know though that just about every reviewer going loves the K10D (as do I). The feature set is great too for the money - one reviewer called it a Nikon D200 feature set for a D80 price. It ain't perfect (no camera is!) but it's the best one I've ever used.

But, again, take advice but then go with the one you personally like.

Mike

Thanks Mike and I do agree with all you have said. I went out at lunch and fondled (groped might be a little too strong although it did border on inappropriate! ) the K10, D80 and 30D. Feature wise, Pentax wins, price wise, Pentax again. Ergos go to the 30D (just my personal preference). That said, I still have yet to commit. I am starting to understand now why my wife complains about me making decisions. Arghhh!

[Greg McCary]

The Olympus 510 has it too. I would like to know if you used the IS in the tubes Mike and if you even needed a tripod? I know I am impressed with the results of mine.....
Greg

[Didache]

Greg - yes I used the IS in the tube, which is why I could handhold at 1/30sec with reasonable consistency without a tripod. I would never have gone below 1/60 or, preferably, 1/90 without it. As for not needing a tripod, the problem underground was that, even at 1/30, the aperture was pretty well wide open, with a consequent loss of depth of field. I have seen a fair number of good ideas down there which just haven't worked because I couldn't keep it sharp from front to back - a tripod would have helped then.

Cheers
Mike

[Greg McCary]

Greg - yes I used the IS in the tube, which is why I could handhold at 1/30sec with reasonable consistency without a tripod. I would never have gone below 1/60 or, preferably, 1/90 without it. As for not needing a tripod, the problem underground was that, even at 1/30, the aperture was pretty well wide open, with a consequent loss of depth of field. I have seen a fair number of good ideas down there which just haven't worked because I couldn't keep it sharp from front to back - a tripod would have helped then.

Cheers
Mike

Thanks Mike. I haven't used mine much just because I am a little "old school". Maybe I will learn to trust it more as time goes on and figure out it's limitations.
Greg