dslr with anti-shake?

[Chickysmom]

I know most dslr cameras have the anti-shake system in the lens, for additional cost over regular lens pricing or course. But I heard mention a dlsr with a built-in anti-shake system replacing the need for it in their lenses. Can you guus comment on this system please....pricing, qualiy, does it ctually work? I am new to the dslr world and looking for info o my first purchase. This will be a long term investment and I don't want to spend money on a camera body and lenses and then find I should have taken a different route.....thanks all! I am looking for th less exensive sytems.....I am not a professional...just a mom!

 

[Master Mason]

Those are the Pentax dSLR's I'll defer to ukat and Groucho as our resident Pentax experts to tell you about them as I don't know a whole lot more

 

[Jeanne B]

I have the Pentax K100D with shake reduction, I love this camera so far although I haven't been able to spend a lot of time practicing with it yet. The shake reduction definitely works. I also have the Canon S3 and I love the image stabilization in that which is why I was so drawn to the K100.

I bought mine with the 18-55 kit lens for $587 from beachcamera.com (I've used them and their sister site buydig several times, very reputable). The price since dropped but it's now climbing back up, last I checked it was slightly more than I paid. The price can't be beat IMO for the quality camera this is. Of course, once you start adding lenses it suddenly gets quite a bit more expensive than p&s. I purchased the 50-200 lens a few weeks after I got my camera because the kit lens didn't have nearly enough reach for me (I was spoiled by the zoom on my S3).

 

[Chickysmom]

I read in mentioned in another post about skipping the kit lens and purchasing one in the 15-200 range, but don't see Pentax has that available. Is there another option?

 

[Anewman]

"for additional cost over regular lens pricing or course"

Minolta(now SONY) have been using in camera anti shake since their first DSLR.
The price of Minolta lenses never really reflected any savings vs Canon IS lenses, some were even more expensive than comprable CANON IS lenses.

Pentax recently introduced a DSLR with AS, I can not comment on pricing vs comprable CANON IS lenses because for my type of shooting Pentax does not really offer any comprable lenses.

Yes the thought of having all your lenses give you a few stops of anti shake is very appealing, but consider the type of shooting you do and see which brand offers what you need. Also remember AS/IS really does not do anything for you if you are a sports shooter, but if you are a theater nut it would be awesome combined with a fast lens.

 

[Jeanne B]

I read in mentioned in another post about skipping the kit lens and purchasing one in the 15-200 range, but don't see Pentax has that available. Is there another option?

When I bought mine the difference in price between body only and the kit lens was only $16 so it was a no brainer to buy the kit lens and it's a nice lens, supposedly better than some of the kit lenses of the other dSLR's. You could consider getting the kit lens as well as the 50-200, that will mean changing lenses at times but many people have this setup, including myself (although I'm not sure if I'm 100% happy with this set up, I've been thinking about buying a lens that I can use as more of a walkaround lens). Generally, from what I've read anyway because I'm no expert, when you buy a lens with a long range you lose some quality at one end or the other vs buying a lens with less range. I've seen the Sigma 18-125 recommended often as a good walkaround lens.

There are others on here that are much more experienced than I am and should be able to give you some more feedback on lens suggestions.

 

[boBQuincy]

On their website Canon explains why in-camera IS is not as good as in-lens IS. Of course Canon only offers in-lens IS (on their SLRs) and they would *never* be biased on way or the other...

I have a Canon 24-105 with IS and it works very well. I was somewhat skeptical but it is usually good down to about 1/8 s, sometimes 1/4 s.

Optics hasn't advanced nearly as fast as camera design and the old rule-of-thumb about not using lenses with a zoom range of more than about 3:1 still seems to hold. Much more range than that usually involves some serious compromises in image quality and focusing speed/accuracy. Sometimes a much higher price tag can improve some of the issues but overall these are not the sharpest lenses.
If one-lens-fits-all is of greater importance than image quality then a 18-200 might just do everything you want. Otherwise it's back to changing lenses.

 

[extreme8]

I had a Minolta 5D with the built in anti-shake until it had an unrepairable failure - yup, it was the AS mechanism. It was the cameras weakest point.

Now that Sony is building the Alpha line they have redesigned the AS, but I no longer have any faith in a system that shakes the sensor around so much.
It is effective, i'ts just not for me anymore. I've taken the money Sony sent me to buy back my camera and gone with the Nikon D200.

Anewman is right, Minolta/Sony standard lenses cost more than the IS/VR lenses from Canon and Nikon. For example, their 70-200 2.8 G ($2399.00) is $800 more than the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR ($1599.00), and this trend continues through the lens line.

The Pentax may be a different situation but for Sony, unless you already have an investment in Minolta glass there is really no cost advantage.

 

[ukcatfan]

The SR in my K100D seems to me to work better than my Canon S1 IS. I only have the kit lens, but I have been able to shoot consistently at 1/4 sec and still get sharp pics more often than I was able to with the S1. I mostly shoot in the wide angle ranges even with my S1. I have read from more than one place that in camera IS works better than optical for the wide to moderate tele end to say around 125-150 and that the optical works better from that point on. While I have conducted no formal tests, my personal feelings having used both systems seems to validate this. Both systems will work well though and the differences would not likely even amount to half a stop in my opinion. There is one thing that the Pentax can do that the optical system can not currently do. It can correct for barrel roll motion. This would most likely come from the act of pressing the shutter as it is on the extreme side of the camera. Another way to solve that is to not press down too hard, but that is easier said than done.

Pretty much any DSLR is an improvement over the P&S world, so much of what you pick should come down to the "feel" of the camera. The only way to figure this out is to go out and try some in person. I cannot imagine investing that much $$$ in a camera without trying one out first.

Good luck with your decision.

Kevin

 

[Groucho]

I love my DL but I do not have a K100D, which is the current model with image stabilization - but I've heard nothing but raves about it and specifically the IS feature. I do plan to upgrade to a K100D or K10D at some point, and I'm sure that I'll never want to go without in-body IS after that. I'm no expert on the different lines but I do try to do a lot of research and keep up with what's going on.

I do understand that there's a debate about in-lens vs in-camera, but as they say "the proof is in the pudding" and K100D users report regularly gaining 2-3 stops thanks to the IS, the same as the in-lens design. I think any advantages to the IS being in the lens are minimal at best, while the advantages of having it in the body are enormous and obvious, especially combined with Pentax's long history of quality lenses. (Unfortunately, the success of the Pentax DSLR line recently has meant that the value of used lenses has shot up dramatically!)

Any concerns about reliability should be tempered with the fact that an IS lens should have roughly similar failure rates - and the K100D body costs about the same or less than most IS lenses, so replacement cost would be similar!

About the kit lens - the Pentax 18-55 that's included is generally considered to be pretty good - not incredible, but certainly competent. From what I've heard, Canon's kit lens is subpar, hence many skipping it. Plus, as Jeanne says, the lens is dirt cheap when bought in a kit, so it's a no-brainer. It's also very small and light.

In terms of selections of lenses, many rate about the (IIRC) 28-200mm lens for the Nikons and I think Canons - there are lenses with the same range on the Pentax side but nothing super high quality. On the other hand, Pentax has the best primes in the business (including the 50mm 1.4 which is reportably astonishing and the best SLR 50mm there is, for a mere $160 after rebate) and the other full range of primes available from any of the big players, and many of their zooms are very good. They also have the Limited line which are all extremely high-quality but pricey. Plus the usual collection of Sigma, Tamron, etc, plus the older lenses (basically, any Pentax lens ever made) all work wonderfully, even old screw-mount ones (with an adapter). Ultimately, I think that each of the Canon/Nikon/Pentax lines have pretty solid lineups of lenses, each with a few small strengths and weaknesses. Oh yes, and Pentax will release their first ultrasonic focusing lenses next month along with the K10D, the lenses will presumably also be weathersealed to match the camera.

Honestly, I think the lack of in-camera IS is a huge problem for Canon and Nikon at the moment. They're painted themselves into a corner now by promoting the concept of in-lens IS, especially when the bodies themselves cost the same or more as the competition (Sony/Pentax) with in-body IS.

My guess will be that we'll see them both release cameras with in-body IS in the future, claiming that they're for the "consumer market" which still promoting in-lens for the "professional" - this will give them the wiggle room to compete better feature-for-feature while not having to give up too much on their body-vs-lens position. Over time, it will be standard in pretty much all digital cameras including pro-level SLRs and the in-lens IS will go away except for specialized applications. I believe that the lens with IS in them are also a bit larger and heavier, too, while the in-camera IS makes the camera itself slightly heavier but not significantly so.

That's just my guess about what they'll do - but I think Canon and Nikon will have to do SOMEthing. Pentax generally sticks to camera shops rather than big box stores, but if your average consumer was shown a K100D for $600 or even a Sony for $900 vs a Canon or Nikon plus IS-lens for probably over 2x the cost, that's a big problem for them. There's no question that all the DSLRs out there are spectacular - the IS is really one of the only significant differentiators at the moment IMHO.

If there are concerns about image quality, I'd really recommend checking out the Pentax DSLR forums over at Steve's Digicams or DPReview, where you'll find countless examples of just what the camera can do - many of them really amazing. The K100D for under $600 is a stunning bargain, no two ways about it.

 

[Anewman]

Honestly, I think the lack of in-camera IS is a huge problem for Canon and Nikon at the moment. They're painted themselves into a corner now by promoting the concept of in-lens IS, especially when the bodies themselves cost the same or more as the competition (Sony/Pentax) with in-body IS.

My guess will be that we'll see them both release cameras with in-body IS in the future, claiming that they're for the "consumer market" which still promoting in-lens for the "professional" - this will give them the wiggle room to compete better feature-for-feature while not having to give up too much on their body-vs-lens position. Over time, it will be standard in pretty much all digital cameras including pro-level SLRs and the in-lens IS will go away except for specialized applications. I believe that the lens with IS in them are also a bit larger and heavier, too, while the in-camera IS makes the camera itself slightly heavier but not significantly so.

This is the first time I here this idea, and I like it. It is very logical.

Another idea would be that they introduce lower end IS lenses(maybe digital/crop only) aimed at consumers, and keep the higher end IS lenses for pros. Think about it, this way they would give existing camera owners more options(leading to more sales) without alienating customers that already purchased IS lenses.

 

[boBQuincy]

Canon is more market driven than anything else. They declared the pixel wars to be over when they released the 30D with the same pixel count as the previous 20D, claiming that 8MP was all the customer needed. Then they released the Rebel XTi with 10MP when Nikon forced their hand with the D80.

I tend to agree that most of us don't *need* 10MP but if the competition has it, you better have it too!

So, where was I going...? Oh yes, if the market demands in-camera IS and the competition has it (and it sells well), then Canon will offer it before too long. It is not about which IS system is better, it is all about what generates profits.

As for which is better, I haven't seen a direct comparison yet, with both short and long lenses. Maybe someone will do one soon.

 

[Groucho]

For those not in the habit of printing posters regularly, even 6mp is almost overkill - but it "looks bad' when a cheap PnS has more megapixels than the bread-and-butter Nikon and Pentax DSLRs, even though the DSLRs have a much larger sensor and produce vastly superior pictures. If all goes according to plan, my next camera will be the 10mp K10D - but I'm more interested in its other features (watersealing, continuous shooting, IS, potential image quality, etc) than the megapixel number.

In an IS comparison, a consumer could ask why the $300 3x zoom PnS has image stabilization but the $1,000 DSLR doesn't.

Canon, Nikon... if you're listening and you like my idea for how to turn around and market DSLRs with inbody IS - just PM me and I'll tell you where to send the check. Everybody wins.

They could also say "we've made a lot of progress with the IS systems in our point and shoot line and the technology is just now finally mature enough to put IS into the body of our DSLRs" or some other line. Whatever it takes.

I'm sure it'll happen. I just don't know who'll do it first.

 

[Groucho]

So, where was I going...? Oh yes, if the market demands in-camera IS and the competition has it (and it sells well), then Canon will offer it before too long. It is not about which IS system is better, it is all about what generates profits.

As for which is better, I haven't seen a direct comparison yet, with both short and long lenses. Maybe someone will do one soon.

Forgot to comment on that. I doubt we'll see a really reliable comparison any time soon. There are surely formulas and figures that tell you all sorts of things, but it's extremely difficult to test in the real world. You'd need a rig that would do consistent shaking to mimic normal human unsteadiness, and it would have to be completely smooth, not just side-to-side, otherwise different results would occur depending on where in the "shake" the shutter was opened. Maybe a job for the Mythbusters?

That leaves us with real world anecdotal evidence, and examples of "I shot this at such-and-such and it would have been much blurrier without IS". No doubt that's true, but it's difficult to say exactly how much. But it definitely makes a big difference.

 

[handicap18]

This is the first time I here this idea, and I like it. It is very logical.

Another idea would be that they introduce lower end IS lenses(maybe digital/crop only) aimed at consumers, and keep the higher end IS lenses for pros. Think about it, this way they would give existing camera owners more options(leading to more sales) without alienating customers that already purchased IS lenses.

Nikon is about to release (its about a month in delay which is now typical of them) a new 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 ED-IF AF-S VR lens. It has a relatively cheep price of $550. Canon's version is about $700 IIRC.

Optically this should be a very good lens and the AF-S will make it a pretty fast focusing lens as well. Many of the higher end Nikon users are a little PO'd because they don't want another 70-300mm consumer lens and are looking for more pro-glass, but it seems Nikon is leaning towards the more general user, kind of along the lines that Anewman is speculating.

As for Canon and Nikon going the "in-body IS/VR" route. I think you might not see it for a few years. Considering the problems Minolta had in the past and with it being fairly new with the Pentax' line and Sony's line AND considering all that Canon and Nikon have put into lenses, they might want to see what happens with the in-body technology. If in 2 years there are no apparent flaws and no recalls and such, then they may go that route.

I believe Canon also just released a new version of the 70-200 f/4 with IS (though it is an 'L' lens and on the expesive side) and considering the newness of the D80 and 30D there might not be another new body for close to year from either of the companies. That being said, there are rumors on the nikonians board that the D50 has been discontinued and has a replacement coming out soon, but I haven't read anything about an "in-body" VR for it.

Only time will tell.

 

[Chickysmom]

I also like the idea of the weather-proofing that pentax has done on their bodies along with the automatic sensor cleaning mechanism.....seems like the would also be advantages to look for when purchasing a dslr.....am I correct?

 

[Chickysmom]

and I also see the newest Pentax, and maybe the others but not sure, has an IR remote you can use from behind the camera....this seems like a good idea too huh?

 

[Greg K.]

I bought the Pentax *ist earlier this year, and LOVED IT, but sold it to my sister just last week so I could get the K100D. So far, I'm loving THAT even more. I haven't had a chance to put it through its paces yet, but from what I've read, it shouldn't disappoint. I got the body-only for about $550 at Amazon. I'm using it for the time being with my old Pentax kit 18-55 lens.

I then ordered through www.buydig.com the Tamron 18-200 lens (made for Pentax digital cameras.) It should arrive any day now, and then I'll let you know how it performs. I used the Sigma 18-125 on my old *ist (which I passed on as well to my sister) and was very happy with that.

 

[Chickysmom]

so the 18-200 proved to be a good all-around lens? I am hoping to avoid lens changes by purchasing a good range lens.....but I am such a novice at all this!!!

 

[Greg K.]

so the 18-200 proved to be a good all-around lens? I am hoping to avoid lens changes by purchasing a good range lens.....but I am such a novice at all this!!!

I actually haven't used the 18-200 yet...I'm waiting for it to arrive ...but was very pleased with the 18-125. Judging from the specs, they should be about the same size and weight, and I found the 18-125 to be a very good all around lens. I never changed lenses after I got it, and it was a great tool for WDW . Not too big or bulky. (My sister has a Pentax for her 35 mm that goes to 300, and the thing is a monster. Ugh.)

But, like a lotta people, I crave ZOOM, so I'm looking forward to the extra oomph of the 200.

FWIW: Tamron recently announced an 18-250 that's due out early next year. I suspect Sigma and the others will soon follow.

I don't think you can go wrong with the Pentax K100D. It's a terrific camera at a terrific price -- and the SR is an added bonus. Plus, I've found it (like the *ist) to be very user-friendly, with a simple and fairly intuitive menu system. Five minutes out of the box, I was snapping away and getting dandy results on AUTO.