In general I think you are right Godfrey. But my approach to the long lens is trying to lower shutter vibrations by adding body weight (the weight of my hand on top of the setup and my head leaning towards the back of the camera).
It is pretty efficient I believe. But the downside is that I do induce movements from my body. This movement (shakes) is what I hope SR will help reducing. I havent jumped at K100. I'll wait and see if K10 delivers the IQ goods. So; so far this is theory. Some (evil persons) might even suggest that it is bollocks. WJHTWAS ;-? Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: 22. september 2006 01:09 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: 3 New DA* USM lenses In general, you don't use image stabilization when attaching the camera to a fixed support. IS systems are generally tuned to reduce camera motion in the frequency range induced by human musculature, not the range of vibration implied by a sturdy tripod. Godfrey On Sep 21, 2006, at 2:56 PM, Tim Øsleby wrote: > Shake Reduction does nothing for my muscle aching after holding the > setup in > position for two-three hours. > > With a well balanced gimbal setup I rest my left arm on top of the > lens, the > right arm I use to move the setup with minimum effort. > > Another thing. SR is not a Shake Stopper, it only _reduces_ the > vibrations; > it's not a magic device. > > SR _and_ tripod is not magic either, but it comes a lot closer ;-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
