Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:36:01 -0800, nospam <nospam RemoveThis @nospam.invalid> wrote
in <200220080836014829%nospam@nospam.invalid>:

>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.

You're apparently misinterpreting what I wrote. Read more carefully.

>> >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.

In-body stabilization works as well as in-camera for wide to short
telephoto. It's also effective at longer focal lengths, just not as
capable at handling large movements.

>> >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.

Not so -- when stabilization is activated during preview, it can limit
movement available when taking the image, as I described previously.
This is simple physics.

>> 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.

Actually just a simple statement of fact.

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

In article <k8oor3tkuu9n4i3265p7j17qfld6n6dnel RemoveThis @4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1 RemoveThis @navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >> >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.
>
> Not so -- when stabilization is activated during preview, it can limit
> movement available when taking the image, as I described previously.
> This is simple physics.

the lens stabilizes the image and the viewfinder benefits. they're
unrelated, and there is no limitation of movement due to activating it
during preview.

> >> 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.
>
> Actually just a simple statement of fact.

actually, it's just being rude, in addition to being irrelevant.
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:46:44 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor.RemoveThis@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
<UPYuj.10465$XI.2511@text.news.virginmedia.com>:

>nospam wrote:
>> In article <rrgor3540jqsk567fd3qld3a5mf5ac22ls.RemoveThis@4ax.com>, John Navas
>> <spamfilter1.RemoveThis@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>[]
>>> 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.
>
>Yes, John Navas has lost any further replies from me on this thread.

I think you're being way too sensitive, especially for Usenet, but
I nonetheless sincerely apologize for having offended you. That was not
my intention.

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

John Turco wrote:

>> Olympus, Sony and Panasonic are all doing pretty well.
>> BTW, you left out Kodak.
>
>
> Hello, John:
>
> And a very serious omission it was, with Kodak ranking among the U.S.
> and worldwide leaders, in digicam sales, today.


I understand it's right up there with GE cameras..






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

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:44:04 -0800, nospam <nospam.TakeThisOut@nospam.invalid> wrote
in <200220080944049837%nospam@nospam.invalid>:

>In article <k8oor3tkuu9n4i3265p7j17qfld6n6dnel.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamfilter1.TakeThisOut@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>> Not so -- when stabilization is activated during preview, it can limit
>> movement available when taking the image, as I described previously.
>> This is simple physics.
>
>the lens stabilizes the image and the viewfinder benefits. they're
>unrelated, and there is no limitation of movement due to activating it
>during preview.

Again, not so. If, for example, the floating correction element has
4 mm maximum movement in a given direction, and has been moved 2 mm to
stabilize during preview, there's only 2 mm left in that direction if
the shutter is pressed, limiting the benefit of stabilization.

>> >> 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.
>>
>> Actually just a simple statement of fact.
>
>actually, it's just being rude, in addition to being irrelevant.

I'm not the one being rude.

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

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:49:52 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter1 DeleteThis @navasgroup.com> wrote in
<1vpor3tt7qt5m88284ptbjau90mjr917lk DeleteThis @4ax.com>:

>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:46:44 GMT, "David J Taylor"
><david-taylor DeleteThis @blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
><UPYuj.10465$XI.2511@text.news.virginmedia.com>:

>>Yes, John Navas has lost any further replies from me on this thread.
>
>I think you're being way too sensitive, especially for Usenet, but
>I nonetheless sincerely apologize for having offended you. That was not
>my intention.

p.s. Should I happen to offend you in the future, please know that's
it's not intentional, and that I'll be happy to apologize again.

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

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:29:05 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor.RemoveThis@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
<lzYuj.10453$XI.7352@text.news.virginmedia.com>:

>It sounds as if you have not actually tried the test I suggested

For what it's worth, I found this a bit offensive.
Will you now afford me the same courtesy?

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

nospam wrote:
>
> In article <47BAADB9.28C0889F.TakeThisOut@concentric.net>, John Turco
> <jtur.TakeThisOut@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> > > > .. 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.
> > >
> > > that's true but in-body stabilizes virtually all lenses. both systems
> > > have their advantages and disadvantages.
> >
> > Hey, if David J. Taylor wants to pay a price premium, in order to enjoy
> > the nebulous benefits of "in-lens image stabilisation" - well, then,
> > more power to him. :-J
>
> it's not that much of a price premium and not at all nebulous. in-lens
> stabilization offers some distinct advantages, such as a stabilized
> viewfinder as well as outperforming in-camera stabilization at longer
> focal lengths. as i said, both systems have their advantages.


Hello, nospam:

You're quite right...if Nikon's way provides no overall edge over the Pentax
approach, then let David continue wasting his pounds, if he so desires. <g>


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur.TakeThisOut@concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

David J Taylor wrote:
>
> John Turco wrote:

<edited for brevity>

> 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


Hello, David:

We're discussing "entry level" DSLR's, recall? I doubt that very many buyers
of either the D40 or K100D, would want to throw lots of cash, at even "'budget'
telephoto zooms."

Regardless, as the D40 body lacks both the image stabilization and the build
quality of the K100D, it >should< be the significantly cheaper model. That it
isn't, merely reflects Nikon's arrogance and crass exploitation of its customer
base.

As one of the DSLR industry's "Big Two" (along with Canon), the company
obviously enjoys overcharging for its various products. Conversely, Pentax -
being a so-called "second tier" manufacturer - offers consumers far greater
value for their money.

Note: The above statements, are all in my opinion, of course.


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur DeleteThis @concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

dj_nme wrote:
>
> David J Taylor wrote:

<heavily edited for brevity>

> > 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.


Hello, DJ:

Alas, I fear you're wasting your time. David's Nikonian chauvinism blinds him to
brutal reality, apparently. <g>


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur RemoveThis @concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

m II wrote:
>
> John Turco wrote:
>
> >> Olympus, Sony and Panasonic are all doing pretty well.
> >> BTW, you left out Kodak.
> >
> >
> > Hello, John:
> >
> > And a very serious omission it was, with Kodak ranking among the U.S.
> > and worldwide leaders, in digicam sales, today.
>
> I understand it's right up there with GE cameras..
>
> mike


Hello, Mike:

Whoa, I was completely unaware of GE's meteoric rise up the digital camera
sales charts! <g>


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur.RemoveThis@concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

In article <47BFC15C.CC5DCDC5.TakeThisOut@concentric.net>, John Turco
<jtur.TakeThisOut@concentric.net> wrote:

> We're discussing "entry level" DSLR's, recall? I doubt that very many buyers
> of either the D40 or K100D, would want to throw lots of cash, at even
> "'budget'
> telephoto zooms."

the lenses he listed are often bundled as a kit.

> As one of the DSLR industry's "Big Two" (along with Canon), the company
> obviously enjoys overcharging for its various products.

people are free to choose whatever camera they want. the fact that
nikon sells more than pentax is proof that they aren't overcharging.
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

John Turco wrote:
[]
> Hello, nospam:
>
> You're quite right...if Nikon's way provides no overall edge over the
> Pentax approach, then let David continue wasting his pounds, if he so
> desires. <g>
>
>
> Cordially,
> John Turco <jtur.RemoveThis@concentric.net>

John,

As I've already shown, there is little price difference, but that isn't
the important point. There is a very substantial advantage in having a
stabilised image in the viewfinder, making composition and other aspects
of the camera operation much easier when hand-holding long lenses. It's
not a brand thing at all, simply a function of where you put the IS.

It's a very easy test to try for yourself in any camera shop. DSLR with
300mm IS/VR lens. Switch IS to off, try framing. Switch IS to on, and
try again. If you can get IS lenses for Pentax, you can enjoy the same
benefit.

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