Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Hi everyone!
I am very new to digital photography. The last few week I have been going over reviews and need help on deciding on a new camera. I have narrowed it down to the Olympus E 620 and the Pentax K-7.
I do more landscape and wildlife work than anything else. At least it seems that way
.
Both cameras have the built in image stabilization and I like that because I have, it seems more lens choices that are much more reasonably priced.
I would think it would be better to have the stabilization in the camera than in the lens. Any thoughts on this?
Any help would be appreciated !!
After looking through this web site I see I have soooo much to learn!!
Thank you!
Rebecca
Quote: I would think it would be better to have the stabilization in the camera than in the lens. Any thoughts on this?
Largely depends on who you believe, According to Nikon & Canon, In lens image stabilising is superior, Because the stabilisation
is custom designed to the exact requirements for the lens " Focal Range " .....!
If you think about it, That makes sense, The longer the lens, The greater the degree of stabilising that may be required, Visa versa
for the shorter lens.
Having a one size fits all lens in- body image stabilsier, Is probably better than non at all though, As far lens prices go, I fear you
have not been looking to hard, Both Canon & Nikon and now Sigma produce reasonably priced " Image Stabilised lens " As well
as the more expensive Pro Models.
That said Image stabilising is hardly a big plus point, Once you realise that all it does is control camera shake, That is the shake
induced by the person holding the camera, Image stabilising will NOT in anyway remove the movement blur of your subject or scene.
Add to that the fact that Image stabilising does NOT work when the camera is mounted on a tripod, The fact that if left switched on
whilst mounted on a tripod, The image stabilising will/can actually cause blurred images, You begin to wonder why have it at all....!!!
What it is good for, Hand held shooting in low light conditions, Especially if you don't have a fast lens, Or want to stop down for DOF.
So thats the facts & myths on Image stabilising, In camera or In lens........Your choice......![]()
Camera wise, From the two models you have shortlisted, The Pentax is a way better choice, If only for the resolution, Higher ISO
performance, 100% Viewfinder.......Plus a few other specs, Guess the Olympus boys will be along anytime soon to counter that...![]()
Oh! Yes The Pentax has a faster frame rate too, Something that can be right handy for " Wildlife " ......!!!!!!!
Me I'm a Nikon shooter, So I am not actually biased one way or the other, The Pentax just has a much better spec.....![]()
Yes, The Pentax K7 is far superior spec. Easy choice of the two.
Quote: Having a one size fits all lens in- body image stabilsier, Is probably better than non at all though, As far lens prices go
I can`t speak of Pentax, I don`t use them, as far as IS goes on camera`s such as the 620 the amount of IS is matched to the lens used.
If your not using a 4/3 lens, you can manually set the amount of IS in the menu, a neat feature, works ace with my lensbaby`s.
I would also like to add Rebbeca that as you want to photograph wildlife the Olympus can use the Olympus Zuiko 70-300 which in converted terms is a massive 140-600 and costs mere £300. Pentax, Nikon and Canon (OK I'll include Sony) users can only dream of such focal lengths at that price!
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.

















