A longer length will over correct for camera movement, if I'm not
mistaken. I could be wrong about it's just my intuition.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>Why?
>
>Shel
>
>
>
>
>
>>[Original Message]
>>From: P. J. Alling
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>You enter the focal length that you're using, or one shorter
On 12/10/06, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not me. I wasn't one of them who claimed that.
You've got to learn to read John, I didn't suggest or infer that you did.
--
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.swiftdsl.c
And according to the original press release at steves digicams, the K10D
is going to have an even better anti shake mechanism than the K100D. So
far I'm stunned by the results I'm getting with my K100D.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> For those who want a "real life" example of the K100D SR in acti
Thanks for the info. Sounds like the reduction will not be quite as
optimal on the short end of the zoom, but it makes sense to go for the
long end. There would naturally be more shake to correct for that.
--
Bruce
Wednesday, October 11, 2006, 1:41:25 AM, you wrote:
>> So what happens when t
Not me. I wasn't one of them who claimed that.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Digital Image Studio
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 10:55 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: K100D Anti-shake
On 12/10/06, J. C. O&#x
day, October 11, 2006 10:48 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: K100D Anti-shake
On 12/10/06, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why?
Because under correction will likely be less offensive than over
correction (which would be the case if the FL was set longer than the
ac
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, graywolf wrote:
> Maybe it reads the focal length from the lens to set the antishake
> profile, but with a K/M lens it just uses a generic setting?
When I use an A50, I'm required to choose the SR from a menu. When I use
an FA28 or the DA18-55, it selects it automatically.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
William Robb
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 9:43 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: K100D Anti-shake
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: K100D Anti-shake
> Hi Bruce,
>
> The wa
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
John Celio
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 4:41 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: K100D Anti-shake
> So what happens when the lens is a zoom? Such as the A 70-210/4?
> What focal length do you put in?
http://www.pentaximaging.com/files/p
On 12/10/06, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The camera needs to know the focal length of the
> Lens to apply the correct magnitude of anti shake
> Compensate.
It's funny, if you were across the speculation when the in-camera SR
was first discussed a year or so back there were quite a
It seems that we're all guessing a bit. So, the old saw, RTFM might apply.
I was not overly impressed with the results you achieved, Bill, While
there was definite improvement, I saw a test made by someone else using a
600mm lens, and the differences between using the lens with/without SR
seemed
Why?
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: P. J. Alling
> You enter the focal length that you're using, or one shorter than then
> one you're using, (I can't imagine that a longer length will give good
> results).
> Bruce Dayton wrote:
>
> >Hello John,
> >
> >So what happens when the lens is a
On 12/10/06, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why?
Because under correction will likely be less offensive than over
correction (which would be the case if the FL was set longer than the
actual lenses FL)
--
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMA
You enter the focal length that you're using, or one shorter than then
one you're using, (I can't imagine that a longer length will give good
results).
Bruce Dayton wrote:
>Hello John,
>
>So what happens when the lens is a zoom? Such as the A 70-210/4?
>What focal length do you put in?
>
>
>
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: K100D Anti-shake
> Hi Bruce,
>
> The way it's been explained to me is that you have to set the focal
> length
> that you're going to use. The problem is that doing so slows you down
> if
&
> So what happens when the lens is a zoom? Such as the A 70-210/4?
> What focal length do you put in?
http://www.pentaximaging.com/files/product/K100D%20Manual.pdf
According to page 49 of the K100D's manual, you'd set it to the long end of
the zoom, or the closest option the camera provides (in
For those who want a "real life" example of the K100D SR in action, one chap
did a rather tongue-in-cheek test, shooting on the move from his lawnmower(!).
The before/after comparison shots are dramatic:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=19647176
Same guy did some nigh
> From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Date: 10/11/2006 12:26:04 AM
> Subject: Re: K100D Anti-shake
>
> Hello John,
>
> So what happens when the lens is a zoom? Such as the A 70-210/4?
> What focal length do you put in?
>
> --
Hello John,
So what happens when the lens is a zoom? Such as the A 70-210/4?
What focal length do you put in?
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Tuesday, October 10, 2006, 6:31:47 PM, you wrote:
JC> Come on guys, this has been discussed myriad times around here. When you
JC> put a K/M/A lens on the K1
> It is odd, and I'm slightly baffled by it.
>
> Think I'm going to pick up an SMC-A 50/2 on friday so I can do some
> real field tests (as opposed to comparing disparate lenses).
>
> Right now, 55mm seems to be working better than 50mm as a setting for
> my SMC-M 50/2.
>
> -Adam
Temporarily ta
At 11:15 AM 11/10/2006, Adam Maas wrote:
> > hahahahaha sorry, I knew all that. What I thought was weird is that
> > the "field tests" showed a difference in shake reduction performance
> > between K, M and A lenses when I thought those three types would behave
> > the same. My poor quoting.
>
graywolf wrote:
> Maybe it reads the focal length from the lens to set the antishake
> profile, but with a K/M lens it just uses a generic setting?
>
No, both A and K/M lenses require you to enter the focal length.
-Adam
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/l
Christian wrote:
> John Celio wrote:
Maybe it reads the focal length from the lens to set the antishake
profile, but with a K/M lens it just uses a generic setting?
>>> With the A series it doesn't read the focal length either. Only F and
>>> FA (and newer) can it read focal length.
he capability of transmitting
> Focal length to camera? I don't think they do.
> jco
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> graywolf
> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 8:19 PM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re
John Celio wrote:
>>>Maybe it reads the focal length from the lens to set the antishake
>>>profile, but with a K/M lens it just uses a generic setting?
>>>
>>
>>With the A series it doesn't read the focal length either. Only F and
>>FA (and newer) can it read focal length. That's what is really w
>> Maybe it reads the focal length from the lens to set the antishake
>> profile, but with a K/M lens it just uses a generic setting?
>>
>
> With the A series it doesn't read the focal length either. Only F and
> FA (and newer) can it read focal length. That's what is really weird.
> You'd expect
graywolf wrote:
> Maybe it reads the focal length from the lens to set the antishake
> profile, but with a K/M lens it just uses a generic setting?
>
With the A series it doesn't read the focal length either. Only F and
FA (and newer) can it read focal length. That's what is really weird.
Yo
f
graywolf
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 8:19 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: K100D Anti-shake
Maybe it reads the focal length from the lens to set the antishake
profile, but with a K/M lens it just uses a generic setting?
--
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.chart
Maybe it reads the focal length from the lens to set the antishake
profile, but with a K/M lens it just uses a generic setting?
--
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
Adam Maas wrote:
>
, October 10, 2006 11:45 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: K100D Anti-shake
I'm talking actual experience, not testing. Conditions in the field
determine practical use, not repeatable testing (which I could care less
about).
And I mostly shoot with K/M or earlier glass, so I ha
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Adam Maas
> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 10:55 AM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: K100D Anti-shake
>
> J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>
>>Someone commente
Christian wrote:
> Adam Maas wrote:
>
>
>>I'm baffled as well, unless it takes absolute aperture into account
>>somehow. But I'm getting 1.5-2 stops from K/M glass and 2-3 stops from A
>>and F glass on my K100D.
>>
>>-Adam
>
>
> Silly question, but can you give us a breakdown of lenses tested
Adam Maas wrote:
>
> I'm baffled as well, unless it takes absolute aperture into account
> somehow. But I'm getting 1.5-2 stops from K/M glass and 2-3 stops from A
> and F glass on my K100D.
>
> -Adam
Silly question, but can you give us a breakdown of lenses tested (focal
length and series)
List
Subject: Re: K100D Anti-shake
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> Someone commented the Anti shake in the K100d works
> Better with "A" than with KM" lenses. W H Y ?
> I do not understand how that could be true as the
> Camera shouldn't be handling them differently.
>
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> Someone commented the Anti shake in the K100d works
> Better with "A" than with KM" lenses. W H Y ?
> I do not understand how that could be true as the
> Camera shouldn't be handling them differently.
> Curious.
> JCO
>
I'm baffled as well, unless it takes absolute apertu
On Aug 16, 2006, at 7:00 AM, Jostein Øksne wrote:
> All taken with FA*400/5.6 and 2X-L teleconverter, handheld.
>
> The first one at 1/90s, the rest at 1/125s.
> One of the chimney pics is done with AS, one without.
>
> http://www.oksne.net/temp/imgp0809.jpg
> http://www.oksne.net/temp/imgp0810.jp
Jostein Øksne wrote:
>Content warning: Flags, flowers and buildings.
No kittens? Bah!
--
Mark Roberts Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
412-687-2835
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
On 8/16/06, Jostein Øksne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All taken with FA*400/5.6 and 2X-L teleconverter, handheld.
>
> The first one at 1/90s, the rest at 1/125s.
> One of the chimney pics is done with AS, one without.
>
> http://www.oksne.net/temp/imgp0809.jpg
> http://www.oksne.net/temp/imgp0810.
On 8/16/06, Jostein Øksne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh, btw.
>
> Bandwidth warning; they're full size JPEGs, compressed to about half a
> megabyte each.
>
> Content warning: Flags, flowers and buildings.
>
> Disclaimer: The poster is not responsible for any damage done to you,
> your computer, o
Oh, btw.
Bandwidth warning; they're full size JPEGs, compressed to about half a
megabyte each.
Content warning: Flags, flowers and buildings.
Disclaimer: The poster is not responsible for any damage done to you,
your computer, or your incentive to buy Pentax cameras as a result of
viewing these
40 matches
Mail list logo
