I've kind of disregarded those findings. Maybe I'm fooling myself but I
seem to get a better hit rate with the A*300 on the K20D than I ever got
with it on any previous body film or digital. Ok for the record before
digital I used the M*300 much more than the A*300, but they are for all
intents and purposes identical on an LX.
On 10/24/2012 12:06 PM, AlunFoto - Jostein Øksne wrote:
A guy called Falk Lumo has concluded that Pentax' system is only efficient up
to about 200mm focal length. Iirc, he did his testing in the K20-D era.
Godfrey DiGiorgi <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Brian Walters
<[email protected]> wrote:
Interesting article that uses a K-5 and a Sigma 50-500 mm HSM lens.
The
article doesn't say what focal length was used in the tests but
presumably
it was the long end.
http://www.digitalversus.com/digital-camera/image-stabilisers-optical-mechanical-a1608.html
I'll read the article a little later, but my personal experience with
both systems says:
- OIS is better for video and working with a DSLR using long lenses
because it stabilizes the image you see in the viewfinder. It's
downside is that, of course, you only get IS with lenses so equipped.
- IBIS is convenient as all lenses can benefit from it.
- Regards efficiency of performance, I haven't seen much in practical
terms that shows a distinct superiority to either system in still
camera use.
BTW, none of my present cameras includes image stabilization of either
type. I haven't seen any evidence this is proving a blocker to my
photography. ;-)
--
Don't lose heart, they might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid a
lengthly search.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
