Here is a quick test i did a few weeks ago. http://web.mac.com/barnyardcam/iWeb/Site/K10D%20SR%20Test.html
First two are at 1/10 and the second two at 1/180 Gives you an idea Dave Quoting Sandy Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Pentax claim their shake reduction is worth "2.5 to 4 stops". Some > Canon ads describe some of their lenses as having "3-stop" or > "4-stop" IS. > > Are these claims anywhere near believable? What are actual users > of K100D or K10D finding? > > If those claims are real, then an F 2.8 lens with three-stops of extra > tolerance for low light will (in some ways) match an F 1.0 lens. Wow! > Even if it is only one stop, or 1.5, that's still a very useful gain. > > If Pentax's "2.5 to 4 stops" claim is accurate, then like a Sigma > 18-50/2.8 zoom (equivalent to 28-75 on 35mm) then becomes > awfully attractive. That one lens could handle nearly all of the > shots I take. > > If the claim is accurate, then even a fairly slow lens like the > Pentax 20-35 F4 becomes quite usable in low light. > > What if you use a fast lens? An F 1.2 prime plus the claimed 2.5-4 > stops gives F 0.5 or better. Even a 1.8 becomes remarkably good > in low light. > > Or is this all just too good to be true? > > Yes, I do realise that a shake reduction system will neither allow fast > shutter speeds for stopping motion nor give the reduced depth of field > that a fast lens will. Also, that no magic is going to make a poor lens > perform like a top-of-the-line one, or a zoom like a good prime, in > sharpness, color rendition, etc. > > But, given a decent lens, what sort of low light performance should > one expect? > > -- > Sandy Harris > Quanzhou, Fujian, China > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > Equine Photography in York Region -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
