Shake Reduction...Worth it?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by balofagus, Aug 9, 2006.

  1. balofagus macrumors regular

    Jan 11, 2006
    Ontario, Canada
    Hi everyone,

    I'm looking into getting either the Pentax K100D or it's little brother; the K110D (when it is released). This choice was based on budget and the fact that my mom has some old K-Mount Pentax I get a few free :p. So if you're planning on suggesting a different camera, please don't.

    Now, I am undecided as of yet because I don't know if I "need" the K100D. For those unfamiliar with the cameras, they are exactly the same except the K100D features Pentax Shake Reduction. Is Shake Reduction worth the extra $100 CAN? I will certainly be purchasing a tripod with either. Is the stability offered by a tripod enough to compensate for not buying the camera with SR?

    I will be using this camera primarily for landscape and close-up (flowers etc.) but in the future I would like to take photos of wildlife (thus requiring telephoto lenses I would assume). Remember, I want to know if SR is a must because if it is just an added bonus then I may not be willing to pay the price. If anyone can help me it is much appreciated!

  2. pulsewidth947 macrumors 65816


    Jan 25, 2005
    From what I've seen of the lenses with SR, they are worth it if you don't have fast lenses and shoot in low light.

    The beauty of the K100D is its the sensor that has SR, not lenses, so any lense will work with it. I haven't seen any pictures comparing with/without SR on the K100D, so its difficult to say for sure whether its worth it or not.

    I'm not sure of the value of $100 can (a few days pay? months pay?), but I'd be inclined to save up the extra 100, as you can't add it later. Its fine having a good tripod, but sometimes you can't take one somewhere, and at those times I think you'll benefit from having an extra stop or two.

    I'll use one example to make my point clearer (forgive me if it sounds patronising): Say you are looking round a museum. You decide a picture of all the people looking at various paintings would be a wonderful idea. Problem is, you had to travel light so couldnt bring your tripod. Elderly/pregnant people are sitting on the benches so you cant use that as a tripod. But you have SR so no worries! Turn your flash off, set your exposure and you can have a slightly slower shutter speed. Normally what people say is if you are using a 50mm lens, you should use no slower than 1/60 (or 1/125), but as you have SR you might be able to use 1/30 shutter speed. That could make the difference between under-exposed and beautiful perfect, crisp exposure :)

    Damn I can rant on can't I?
  3. jared_kipe macrumors 68030


    Dec 8, 2003
    A good thing to remember is that with cropped sensors, 1/60 for 50mm isn't good enough anymore. The focal length behaves much more like a 75mm lens, so you should shoot something like 1/80 (and on Canon bodies with 1.6x maybe 1/100)
  4. Abstract macrumors Penryn


    Dec 27, 2002
    Location Location Location
    Take it from another Canuck --- it's worth the $100 difference. It'll be great for you to be able to handhold your camera and take closeup shots of flowers at angles you couldn't get with a tripod. It's just so much more free to handhold sometimes, and you'll appreciate that freedom and not having to carry a tripod outside at times.

    But about the wildlife, I guess the SR would only help a little bit. Actually, at the telephoto end, it's likely that the SR won't help much at all, and that's not only because the animal you're trying to photograph likely isn't staying perfectly still.

Share This Page