Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

John Turco wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>>
>> nospam wrote:
>>> In article <CGStj.8581$XI.3845@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
>>> Taylor <david-taylor RemoveThis @blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You said it right! My Pentax K100D stacks up against any
>>>>> equivalent DSLR from Canon and Nikon, but, at a much lower price
>>>>> point.
>>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, though, it lacks in-lens image stabilisation (unless
>>>> 3rd party vendors offer this?).
>>>
>>> it has in-body stabilization.
>>
>> .. yes, of course, but that doesn't benefit the view through the
>> viewfinder, which is not stabilised. Try comparing in-lens and
>> in-body with a hand-held 300mm lens on a windy day and you'll see
>> why the in-lens is so much preferable to in-body.
>>
>> David
>
>
> Hello, David:
>
> What "budget" DSLR, other than the peerless Pentax K100D, has >any<
> sort of image stabilization, whatsoever?
>
> Hint: Certainly NOT your Nikon D40 body, old man! <g>
>
>
> Cordially,
> John Turco <jtur RemoveThis @concentric.net>

John,

If you compare a long lens (e.g. 300mm) with in-lens and in-body
stabilisation, it is immediately obvious why paying any extra for in-lens
IS is well worthwhile. Do try it sometime. Just comapre framing the
subject with the IS switched on and off. It is not a "nebulous
advantage", but an immediately obvious one. Both of my "budget" telephoto
zooms have in-lens IS. Buying purely on price may not get you the best
overall DSLR system, nor would buying at the cheapest supplier. Let's
look at UK prices from Warehouse Express:

Pentax
K100D + 18-55mm GBP 330
50-200mm GBP 169
Total: GBP 499

Nikon
D40 + 18-55mm GBP 299
55-200mm VR GBP 179
Total: GBP 478

So no "price premium", actually a saving. I also have a 70-300mm VR lens
as well, which is missing from this supplier's Pentax line-up.

Cheers,
David
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

David J Taylor wrote:
> John Turco wrote:
>
>>David J Taylor wrote:
>>
>>>nospam wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <CGStj.8581$XI.3845@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
>>>>Taylor <david-taylor.RemoveThis@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>You said it right! My Pentax K100D stacks up against any
>>>>>>equivalent DSLR from Canon and Nikon, but, at a much lower price
>>>>>>point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Unfortunately, though, it lacks in-lens image stabilisation (unless
>>>>>3rd party vendors offer this?).
>>>>
>>>>it has in-body stabilization.
>>>
>>>.. yes, of course, but that doesn't benefit the view through the
>>>viewfinder, which is not stabilised. Try comparing in-lens and
>>>in-body with a hand-held 300mm lens on a windy day and you'll see
>>>why the in-lens is so much preferable to in-body.
>>>
>>>David
>>
>>
>>Hello, David:
>>
>>What "budget" DSLR, other than the peerless Pentax K100D, has >any<
>>sort of image stabilization, whatsoever?
>>
>>Hint: Certainly NOT your Nikon D40 body, old man! <g>
>>
>>
>>Cordially,
>> John Turco <jtur.RemoveThis@concentric.net>
>
>
> John,
>
> If you compare a long lens (e.g. 300mm) with in-lens and in-body
> stabilisation, it is immediately obvious why paying any extra for in-lens
> IS is well worthwhile. Do try it sometime. Just comapre framing the
> subject with the IS switched on and off. It is not a "nebulous
> advantage", but an immediately obvious one. Both of my "budget" telephoto
> zooms have in-lens IS. Buying purely on price may not get you the best
> overall DSLR system, nor would buying at the cheapest supplier. Let's
> look at UK prices from Warehouse Express:
>
> Pentax
> K100D + 18-55mm GBP 330
> 50-200mm GBP 169
> Total: GBP 499
>
> Nikon
> D40 + 18-55mm GBP 299
> 55-200mm VR GBP 179
> Total: GBP 478
>
> So no "price premium", actually a saving. I also have a 70-300mm VR lens
> as well, which is missing from this supplier's Pentax line-up.
>
> Cheers,
> David

At least be fair and specify comparible lenses for both.
You forgot to have both of the Nikon lenses as VR lenses, as both the
lenses specified by you for the Pentax K100D can be used with Pentax
in-body AS.
I'm sorry, but the Nikon D40 18-55mm kit lens isn't a VR lens, so your
price comparison is invalid.

The closest listed Nikon lens at Warehouse Express is the 18-55mm
f/3.5-5.6G AF-S VR DX at GBP 179.

Warehouse Express doesn't sell a D40 without a kit lens, so a Nikon D40
with an all VR lens line-up would cost out at:
Nikon D40 (with non VR 18-55mm kit lens)- GBP 299
18-55mm VR - GBP 179
55-200mm VR - GBP 179

total - GBP 657

A fair comparison makes the Nikon GBP 158 more expensive than the Pentax.
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

In article
<47bad716$0$30968$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme
<dj_nme DeleteThis @iinet.net.au> wrote:

> Warehouse Express doesn't sell a D40 without a kit lens, so a Nikon D40
> with an all VR lens line-up would cost out at:
> Nikon D40 (with non VR 18-55mm kit lens)- GBP 299
> 18-55mm VR - GBP 179
> 55-200mm VR - GBP 179
>
> total - GBP 657
>
> A fair comparison makes the Nikon GBP 158 more expensive than the Pentax.

except that you now have *three* lenses, not two. the extra 18-55mm
can be sold, so the difference is not as big as you make it out to be.
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

dj_nme wrote:
[]
> At least be fair and specify comparible lenses for both.
> You forgot to have both of the Nikon lenses as VR lenses, as both the
> lenses specified by you for the Pentax K100D can be used with Pentax
> in-body AS.
> I'm sorry, but the Nikon D40 18-55mm kit lens isn't a VR lens, so your
> price comparison is invalid.
>
> The closest listed Nikon lens at Warehouse Express is the 18-55mm
> f/3.5-5.6G AF-S VR DX at GBP 179.
>
> Warehouse Express doesn't sell a D40 without a kit lens, so a Nikon
> D40 with an all VR lens line-up would cost out at:
> Nikon D40 (with non VR 18-55mm kit lens)- GBP 299
> 18-55mm VR - GBP 179
> 55-200mm VR - GBP 179
>
> total - GBP 657
>
> A fair comparison makes the Nikon GBP 158 more expensive than the
> Pentax.

Had there been a D40 + 18-55mm VR kit, I would have quoted that, of
course. There are those that argue "you don't need IS below 50mm", but I
don't agree with that. I suspect that the VR will become the standard
"kit" lens (as it is for the most recent cameras), and then the prices
will be similar. You obviously don't need two 18-55mm lenses as your GBP
657 includes.

A pity you can't get a Pentax 70-300mm zoom, or is that just too new or
one which Warehouse Express don't stock? I see a 55-300mm on DPReview
from January 2008.

Cheers,
David
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

David J Taylor wrote:
> dj_nme wrote:
> []
>
>>At least be fair and specify comparible lenses for both.
>>You forgot to have both of the Nikon lenses as VR lenses, as both the
>>lenses specified by you for the Pentax K100D can be used with Pentax
>>in-body AS.
>>I'm sorry, but the Nikon D40 18-55mm kit lens isn't a VR lens, so your
>>price comparison is invalid.
>>
>>The closest listed Nikon lens at Warehouse Express is the 18-55mm
>>f/3.5-5.6G AF-S VR DX at GBP 179.
>>
>>Warehouse Express doesn't sell a D40 without a kit lens, so a Nikon
>>D40 with an all VR lens line-up would cost out at:
>>Nikon D40 (with non VR 18-55mm kit lens)- GBP 299
>>18-55mm VR - GBP 179
>>55-200mm VR - GBP 179
>>
>>total - GBP 657
>>
>>A fair comparison makes the Nikon GBP 158 more expensive than the
>>Pentax.
>
>
> Had there been a D40 + 18-55mm VR kit, I would have quoted that, of
> course. There are those that argue "you don't need IS below 50mm", but I
> don't agree with that.

Neither do I.
I do a fair bit of low-light photography, so really apreciate using AS
on wide angle lenses.

> I suspect that the VR will become the standard
> "kit" lens (as it is for the most recent cameras), and then the prices
> will be similar. You obviously don't need two 18-55mm lenses as your GBP
> 657 includes.

Well, no.
You don't really absolutely require both Nikon 18-55mm lenses, but with
out that you'd have to unbalance the comparison by giving Nikon an
unfair price advantage of a non-VR kit lens.

> A pity you can't get a Pentax 70-300mm zoom, or is that just too new or
> one which Warehouse Express don't stock? I see a 55-300mm on DPReview
> from January 2008.

Pentax has a 50-200mm zoom listed on their UK website, but this doesn't
have the reach of a 300mm long end and there is no "find retailer" link
as there is on the USA website.
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

dj_nme wrote:
[]
> You don't really absolutely require both Nikon 18-55mm lenses, but
> with out that you'd have to unbalance the comparison by giving Nikon
> an unfair price advantage of a non-VR kit lens.

Well, the purpose was really to show that buying IS/VR lenses isn't (at
least with some NIkon lenses) the great price uplift that it was claimed
to be. A bonus if you are buying from scratch.

If you already have a bagful of non-IS Pentax lenses, the Pentax in-body
IS is cheaper, but at the cost of a poorer system to use.

Cheers,
David
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:22:46 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor DeleteThis @blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
<azQuj.10284$XI.5416@text.news.virginmedia.com>:

>dj_nme wrote:
>[]
>> You don't really absolutely require both Nikon 18-55mm lenses, but
>> with out that you'd have to unbalance the comparison by giving Nikon
>> an unfair price advantage of a non-VR kit lens.
>
>Well, the purpose was really to show that buying IS/VR lenses isn't (at
>least with some NIkon lenses) the great price uplift that it was claimed
>to be. A bonus if you are buying from scratch.
>
>If you already have a bagful of non-IS Pentax lenses, the Pentax in-body
>IS is cheaper, but at the cost of a poorer system to use.

There are pros and cons to both systems, and needs are different, so
that's not a valid overall generalization.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:22:46 GMT, "David J Taylor"
[]
>> If you already have a bagful of non-IS Pentax lenses, the Pentax
>> in-body IS is cheaper, but at the cost of a poorer system to use.
>
> There are pros and cons to both systems, and needs are different, so
> that's not a valid overall generalization.

The desired result is the same - to enable camera-shake to be reduced, and
it's easy to demonstrate that in-lens IS/VR provides a superior user
experience.

David
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:42:12 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor DeleteThis @blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
<EJRuj.10302$XI.8006@text.news.virginmedia.com>:

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:22:46 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>[]
>>> If you already have a bagful of non-IS Pentax lenses, the Pentax
>>> in-body IS is cheaper, but at the cost of a poorer system to use.
>>
>> There are pros and cons to both systems, and needs are different, so
>> that's not a valid overall generalization.
>
>The desired result is the same - to enable camera-shake to be reduced, and
>it's easy to demonstrate that in-lens IS/VR provides a superior user
>experience.

Again, there are pros and cons to both systems, and needs are different,
so that's not a valid overall generalization. For example, while
in-lens stabilization can be more effective on long focal lengths, many
users don't use long focal lengths, and in-camera stabilization works
quite well on shorter focal lengths, plus has the advantage of working
with good lenses that lack in-lens stabilization. "Different stokes for
different folks."

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

John Navas wrote:
[]
> Again, there are pros and cons to both systems, and needs are
> different, so that's not a valid overall generalization. For
> example, while in-lens stabilization can be more effective on long
> focal lengths, many users don't use long focal lengths, and in-camera
> stabilization works quite well on shorter focal lengths, plus has the
> advantage of working with good lenses that lack in-lens
> stabilization. "Different stokes for different folks."

Try the test I suggested. Note that I suggested a 200mm or 300mm lens.
And you are missing the point - it is /not/ about the quality of the
stabilisation, it is about the quality of the user experience with long
lenses. Having a stable image in the viewfinder is worth quite a lot, and
is an advantage frequently ignore when comparing the two systems. I also
commented that in-body had advantages in some circumstances.

David
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:48:20 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor.RemoveThis@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
<8sUuj.10357$XI.1662@text.news.virginmedia.com>:

>John Navas wrote:
>[]
>> Again, there are pros and cons to both systems, and needs are
>> different, so that's not a valid overall generalization. For
>> example, while in-lens stabilization can be more effective on long
>> focal lengths, many users don't use long focal lengths, and in-camera
>> stabilization works quite well on shorter focal lengths, plus has the
>> advantage of working with good lenses that lack in-lens
>> stabilization. "Different stokes for different folks."
>
>Try the test I suggested. Note that I suggested a 200mm or 300mm lens.

Been there; done that. In fact I normally use the stabilization mode on
my FZ8 (as on my FZ5 before it) that does not stabilize the viewfinder
image with no difficulties, even at 430 mm zoom (35 mm equiv), any more
than when I use standard binoculars. The reason I do that is
stabilizing the viewfinder inevitably reduces the effectiveness of
stabilization when taking the picture, since the stabilizer will tend to
have reduced movement available.

>And you are missing the point - it is /not/ about the quality of the
>stabilisation, it is about the quality of the user experience with long
>lenses.

As I wrote, not all users use long lenses.

>Having a stable image in the viewfinder is worth quite a lot, and
>is an advantage frequently ignore when comparing the two systems.

Not all users are willing to trade off more effective stabilization of
the photo for stabilization of the viewfinder.

>I also
>commented that in-body had advantages in some circumstances.

You only called it cheaper, and then immediately called it poorer.

That you personally prefer in-lens stabilization is all well and good,
but that doesn't mean it's the best system for everyone else. Not all
of us have hands so shaky that we need stabilization of the viewfinder.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

In article <rrgor3540jqsk567fd3qld3a5mf5ac22ls.RemoveThis@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1.RemoveThis@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> Been there; done that. In fact I normally use the stabilization mode on
> my FZ8 (as on my FZ5 before it) that does not stabilize the viewfinder
> image with no difficulties, even at 430 mm zoom (35 mm equiv), any more
> than when I use standard binoculars. The reason I do that is
> stabilizing the viewfinder inevitably reduces the effectiveness of
> stabilization when taking the picture, since the stabilizer will tend to
> have reduced movement available.

viewfinder stabilization is a side-effect of having it done in the
lens, a system which is *more* effective at longer focal lengths, not
less.

> >And you are missing the point - it is /not/ about the quality of the
> >stabilisation, it is about the quality of the user experience with long
> >lenses.
>
> As I wrote, not all users use long lenses.

it helps with short lenses too, just not as significantly.

> >Having a stable image in the viewfinder is worth quite a lot, and
> >is an advantage frequently ignore when comparing the two systems.
>
> Not all users are willing to trade off more effective stabilization of
> the photo for stabilization of the viewfinder.

no tradeoff necessary. they get both.

> That you personally prefer in-lens stabilization is all well and good,
> but that doesn't mean it's the best system for everyone else. Not all
> of us have hands so shaky that we need stabilization of the viewfinder.

resorting to insults, i see.
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:48:20 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor.TakeThisOut@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
> <8sUuj.10357$XI.1662@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>> []
>>> Again, there are pros and cons to both systems, and needs are
>>> different, so that's not a valid overall generalization. For
>>> example, while in-lens stabilization can be more effective on long
>>> focal lengths, many users don't use long focal lengths, and
>>> in-camera stabilization works quite well on shorter focal lengths,
>>> plus has the advantage of working with good lenses that lack in-lens
>>> stabilization. "Different stokes for different folks."
>>
>> Try the test I suggested. Note that I suggested a 200mm or 300mm
>> lens.
>
> Been there; done that. In fact I normally use the stabilization mode
> on my FZ8 (as on my FZ5 before it) that does not stabilize the
> viewfinder image with no difficulties, even at 430 mm zoom (35 mm
> equiv), any more than when I use standard binoculars. The reason I
> do that is stabilizing the viewfinder inevitably reduces the
> effectiveness of stabilization when taking the picture, since the
> stabilizer will tend to have reduced movement available.
>
>> And you are missing the point - it is /not/ about the quality of the
>> stabilisation, it is about the quality of the user experience with
>> long lenses.
>
> As I wrote, not all users use long lenses.
>
>> Having a stable image in the viewfinder is worth quite a lot, and
>> is an advantage frequently ignore when comparing the two systems.
>
> Not all users are willing to trade off more effective stabilization of
> the photo for stabilization of the viewfinder.
>
>> I also
>> commented that in-body had advantages in some circumstances.
>
> You only called it cheaper, and then immediately called it poorer.
>
> That you personally prefer in-lens stabilization is all well and good,
> but that doesn't mean it's the best system for everyone else. Not all
> of us have hands so shaky that we need stabilization of the
> viewfinder.

It sounds as if you have not actually tried the test I suggested, with a
Nikon 300mm IS lens on a DSLR. The stabilisation performance Panasonic
and of the Nikon/Canon systems is comparable, as shown by independent
reviews, but the in-lens of the Nikon and Canon system do not need to
offer the mode-1 mode-2 choice of the Panasonic.

In-lens can produce an additional benefit for the photographer compared to
in-body, particularly for long lenses.

David
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss