CameraLabs has a EM1X review ready.....link

[James Stirling]

Some real world usage is what this thread is about But it’s only one data point

Amazing how quick the same regulars go negative.......

I leave it to the intellectuals to figure out how a 7 stop advantage together with depth of field advantage M43 benefit at least 1 or 2 lower ISO stops.....

That's fairly typical. There is no '7 stop advantage'. The competition also has IS. That IS will often run to 5.5 stops or so on CIPA tests, so that is 1.5 stops 'advantage', if CIPA tests really tell you much about the effectiveness of IS, for gains far beyond what they were designed to measure, and so long as you only eve shoot static subjects, which is not the usual case for a camera aimed at action photography.

Depend on what "the competition" is. If comparing to the 1Dx II or D5 then no, they do not offer 5.5 stops of IBIS. If I'm comparing to the A9 is 5-stops and good luck achieving that with any consistency in hand. I get 2-3 stops with Sony consistently. If comparing to other sport-oriented crop cameras - 7DII, D500, XT3, G9, EM1mkII, only the mFT options offer 5.5 stops IBIS.

There are lenses with stabilisation covering from 15-800mm for FF and 15-1200mm { FF equiv AOV } for Nikon DX

"Aimed" at action photography doesn't mean limited to action photography. Not all shots are taken at 1/1000. Even when they are freezing motion, if I'm on a moving platform (watercraft, automobile, train, ski's etc) stabilization is appreciated - especially in video and framing still shots at longer focal lengths.

A look at the recent 2018 Wildlife Photographer of the Year Winners, 8/14 were at or below 1/320, one as low as 1/8sec so stabilization of some sort (IBIS, OIS, Dual-IS, tripod) would be helpful. Is it required? No, but like many of the features in modern cameras they expand possibilities. If offered two versions of the same camera - 1 with IBIS and 1 without, I would choose IBIS each and every time and like dynamic range, the more available the better.

Whilst I agree that m43 IBIS feels better in this area. I think you have the mk II Sony cameras the mark III models upped the game in this area and pretty much every area . Obviously these things are hard to test as we all have different shooting techniques and degrees of personal stabilisation { as you may imagine I am very unstable } . I am not sure what methodology CIPA uses to do their tests but it is the only independent tested ratings I am aware of . One would assume that the various IBIS systems are tested the same way

 

[James Stirling]

On a lighter note out of interest, is there a functioning Nikon to M 4/3 adaptor, that will AF?

nope but there is one for Sony

I have one of those, functioning is a generous description

i saw a video with the 3 available, all 3 are made in the same factory and only the firmware is different, some did better than others with certain lenses, a shame really as i have some Nikon lenses

I will be moving to the Z7 soon anyway, Sony have some great features and image quality but the ergonomics just do not work for me. I have a load of Nikon stuff { lenses, flashes. accessories } that all work on the FTZ. Luckily most of my lenses are reasonably modern and those that I was able to try at a test day worked well enough for me.

I don't need C-AF and shoot exclusively in S-AF or MF . I am just waiting to see how well the new 14-30mm F/4 performs. There is also a techart adapter in development that will allow me to keep a couple of my favourite Sony lenses such as the 90mm macro where focus does not matter. You guys that insist on shooting fast moving subjects always have it a bit more difficult

I'm thinking that there's nothing wrong withe the Z AF that a firmware update or two won't fix. Looks like the basics work pretty well, just that the smart subject acquisition goes a bit haywire sometimes.

Luckily it is not a big deal for me I wonder if the upcoming firmware with eye-AF , CFexpress support etc may up the game . As a long time Nikon shooter the Z6/7 really feels like coming home. Sony have a great feature set and deliver lovely image quality . However since trying the Nikon hands-on , the ergonomics of the Sony cameras which was already a mild annoyance has grown to be a PITA , obviously this is only my opinion

 

[MEDISN]

Some real world usage is what this thread is about But it’s only one data point

Amazing how quick the same regulars go negative.......

I leave it to the intellectuals to figure out how a 7 stop advantage together with depth of field advantage M43 benefit at least 1 or 2 lower ISO stops.....

That's fairly typical. There is no '7 stop advantage'. The competition also has IS. That IS will often run to 5.5 stops or so on CIPA tests, so that is 1.5 stops 'advantage', if CIPA tests really tell you much about the effectiveness of IS, for gains far beyond what they were designed to measure, and so long as you only eve shoot static subjects, which is not the usual case for a camera aimed at action photography.

Depend on what "the competition" is. If comparing to the 1Dx II or D5 then no, they do not offer 5.5 stops of IBIS. If I'm comparing to the A9 is 5-stops and good luck achieving that with any consistency in hand. I get 2-3 stops with Sony consistently. If comparing to other sport-oriented crop cameras - 7DII, D500, XT3, G9, EM1mkII, only the mFT options offer 5.5 stops IBIS.

There are lenses with stabilisation covering from 15-800mm for FF and 15-1200mm { FF equiv AOV } for Nikon DX

Those aren't exactly IBIS are they Jim :-D But yes you can get 3-4 stops (OIS) at certain focal lengths with certain lenses. IBIS allows stabilization of every single lens you can mount to the body. Of course there are OIS lenses in mFT land too and they work rather better in Sync-IS/Dual-IS than any other system I've used.

"Aimed" at action photography doesn't mean limited to action photography. Not all shots are taken at 1/1000. Even when they are freezing motion, if I'm on a moving platform (watercraft, automobile, train, ski's etc) stabilization is appreciated - especially in video and framing still shots at longer focal lengths.

A look at the recent 2018 Wildlife Photographer of the Year Winners, 8/14 were at or below 1/320, one as low as 1/8sec so stabilization of some sort (IBIS, OIS, Dual-IS, tripod) would be helpful. Is it required? No, but like many of the features in modern cameras they expand possibilities. If offered two versions of the same camera - 1 with IBIS and 1 without, I would choose IBIS each and every time and like dynamic range, the more available the better.

Whilst I agree that m43 IBIS feels better in this area. I think you have the mk II Sony cameras the mark III models upped the game in this area and pretty much every area .

I've used the A9. It provides the same 2-3 stops of stabilization the second gen Sony's did. Is there evidence of significant IBIS improvement from gen 2 to gen 3 Sony bodies?

Obviously these things are hard to test as we all have different shooting techniques and degrees of personal stabilisation { as you may imagine I am very unstable } . I am not sure what methodology CIPA uses to do their tests but it is the only independent tested ratings I am aware of . One would assume that the various IBIS systems are tested the same way

They are tested the same way (CIPA). As Bob alludes to, any relevance to real-world results is another matter. That's why I like to hear/see results from the same person using multiple systems so they can provide a relative baseline for expectations. In those instances you tend to hear compliments to other systems but usually ends with "not as good as Olympus" verbiage. Certainly any IBIS/OIS is better than none for my use but the difference in say the EM1mkII and A9 in stabilization is as noticeable as the difference in image quality. Sometimes they are very close, sometimes one is clearly ahead depending of course on the circumstances.

 

[bobn2]

Some real world usage is what this thread is about But it’s only one data point

Amazing how quick the same regulars go negative.......

I leave it to the intellectuals to figure out how a 7 stop advantage together with depth of field advantage M43 benefit at least 1 or 2 lower ISO stops.....

That's fairly typical. There is no '7 stop advantage'. The competition also has IS. That IS will often run to 5.5 stops or so on CIPA tests, so that is 1.5 stops 'advantage', if CIPA tests really tell you much about the effectiveness of IS, for gains far beyond what they were designed to measure, and so long as you only eve shoot static subjects, which is not the usual case for a camera aimed at action photography.

Depend on what "the competition" is. If comparing to the 1Dx II or D5 then no, they do not offer 5.5 stops of IBIS.

They offer IS with all the long lenses. The 'IB' is just one of the techniques.

If I'm comparing to the A9 is 5-stops and good luck achieving that with any consistency in hand. I get 2-3 stops with Sony consistently. If comparing to other sport-oriented crop cameras - 7DII, D500, XT3, G9, EM1mkII, only the mFT options offer 5.5 stops IBIS.

So, why is only body IS allowed? Optical IS also works and is likely just as effective with long focal lengths. If you want to contend otherwise, please do feel free to find some actual evidence to support the claim.

The rest is answering points no-one made, so I'll pass on it.

"Aimed" at action photography doesn't mean limited to action photography. Not all shots are taken at 1/1000. Even when they are freezing motion, if I'm on a moving platform (watercraft, automobile, train, ski's etc) stabilization is appreciated - especially in video and framing still shots at longer focal lengths.

A look at the recent 2018 Wildlife Photographer of the Year Winners, 8/14 were at or below 1/320, one as low as 1/8sec so stabilization of some sort (IBIS, OIS, Dual-IS, tripod) would be helpful. Is it required? No, but like many of the features in modern cameras they expand possibilities. If offered two versions of the same camera - 1 with IBIS and 1 without, I would choose IBIS each and every time and like dynamic range, the more available the better.

 

[MEDISN]

Some real world usage is what this thread is about But it’s only one data point

Amazing how quick the same regulars go negative.......

I leave it to the intellectuals to figure out how a 7 stop advantage together with depth of field advantage M43 benefit at least 1 or 2 lower ISO stops.....

That's fairly typical. There is no '7 stop advantage'. The competition also has IS. That IS will often run to 5.5 stops or so on CIPA tests, so that is 1.5 stops 'advantage', if CIPA tests really tell you much about the effectiveness of IS, for gains far beyond what they were designed to measure, and so long as you only eve shoot static subjects, which is not the usual case for a camera aimed at action photography.

Depend on what "the competition" is. If comparing to the 1Dx II or D5 then no, they do not offer 5.5 stops of IBIS.

They offer IS with all the long lenses. The 'IB' is just one of the techniques.

None of which are 5.5 stops. IBIS can stabilize every single lens you can mount to it as well as work in concert with OIS at longer focal lengths.

If I'm comparing to the A9 is 5-stops and good luck achieving that with any consistency in hand. I get 2-3 stops with Sony consistently. If comparing to other sport-oriented crop cameras - 7DII, D500, XT3, G9, EM1mkII, only the mFT options offer 5.5 stops IBIS.

So, why is only body IS allowed?

No one said this. IBIS works wonderfully with OIS but OIS alone does not provide 5.5 stops of stabilization and is limited the lenses that offer it.

Optical IS also works and is likely just as effective with long focal lengths.

Cameras are not limited to long focal lengths. Many of the longer focal length mFT offerings have OIS as well.

The rest is answering points no-one made, so I'll pass on it.

You said "so long as you only eve shoot static subjects" which isn't the case. The EM1X is NOT limited to action photography and IBIS has benefits beyond whether the subject is static or not.

"Aimed" at action photography doesn't mean limited to action photography. Not all shots are taken at 1/1000. Even when they are freezing motion, if I'm on a moving platform (watercraft, automobile, train, ski's etc) stabilization is appreciated - especially in video and framing still shots at longer focal lengths.

A look at the recent 2018 Wildlife Photographer of the Year Winners, 8/14 were at or below 1/320, one as low as 1/8sec so stabilization of some sort (IBIS, OIS, Dual-IS, tripod) would be helpful. Is it required? No, but like many of the features in modern cameras they expand possibilities. If offered two versions of the same camera - 1 with IBIS and 1 without, I would choose IBIS each and every time and like dynamic range, the more available the better.

 

[MShot]

I think he said he wouldn't use it for that. He just wanted to show how stable the video is. The stabilization improvement might trickle down to smaller bodies.

 

[Foto64]

An EM5 and EM1.3 with some of these new technologies plus a high resolution EVF could be amazing.

 

[bobn2]

Some real world usage is what this thread is about But it’s only one data point

Amazing how quick the same regulars go negative.......

I leave it to the intellectuals to figure out how a 7 stop advantage together with depth of field advantage M43 benefit at least 1 or 2 lower ISO stops.....

That's fairly typical. There is no '7 stop advantage'. The competition also has IS. That IS will often run to 5.5 stops or so on CIPA tests, so that is 1.5 stops 'advantage', if CIPA tests really tell you much about the effectiveness of IS, for gains far beyond what they were designed to measure, and so long as you only eve shoot static subjects, which is not the usual case for a camera aimed at action photography.

Depend on what "the competition" is. If comparing to the 1Dx II or D5 then no, they do not offer 5.5 stops of IBIS.

They offer IS with all the long lenses. The 'IB' is just one of the techniques.

None of which are 5.5 stops. IBIS can stabilize every single lens you can mount to it as well as work in concert with OIS at longer focal lengths.

If I'm comparing to the A9 is 5-stops and good luck achieving that with any consistency in hand. I get 2-3 stops with Sony consistently. If comparing to other sport-oriented crop cameras - 7DII, D500, XT3, G9, EM1mkII, only the mFT options offer 5.5 stops IBIS.

So, why is only body IS allowed?

No one said this. IBIS works wonderfully with OIS but OIS alone does not provide 5.5 stops of stabilization and is limited the lenses that offer it.

For both the above, look up to the transcript to the emboldened statement of VideoPic to which I was replying, where he was claiming a 'seven stop advantage' due to IBIS. There's only a 'seven stop advantage' if you assume that the competition has no IS at all, and then only if you accept Olympus' promotional material about how effective their IS is. And I think you were the one accepting that CIPA ratings, on which this 'seven stops' is based, don't mean much. As for how many stops you see in real life with the various systems, neither you nor I know. I looked hard for independent comparative tests which showed the superiority that you claim for IBIS. I found none.

Optical IS also works and is likely just as effective with long focal lengths.

Cameras are not limited to long focal lengths. Many of the longer focal length mFT offerings have OIS as well.

Sure, but that still doesn't justify VideoPic's 'seven stops advantage'. It's baloney. I can't see why you're arguing to support it.

The rest is answering points no-one made, so I'll pass on it.

You said "so long as you only eve shoot static subjects" which isn't the case. The EM1X is NOT limited to action photography and IBIS has benefits beyond whether the subject is static or not.

Trying just to keep on the subject and context which was the effectiveness of the EMIX as an action camera against competitive offering in that market. I'm not arguing against IBIS, which I'm a fan of. I'm just saying that comparisons that suggest that the competition has no IS at all, or that Olympus' is necessarily better, just because Olympus says so.

--

Ride easy, William.
Bob

 

[Snoddas]

An EM5 and EM1.3 with some of these new technologies plus a high resolution EVF could be amazing.

Add some new battery technology as well. That would probably be needed.

 

[Tommi K1]

I've never seen any hard evidence given apart from a recital of Olympus' advertising claims, which have included from misleading to downright dishonest in the past.

You don't even want to accept such things, as of you seriously go to those Olympus cameras with their best IBIS and compare it to best what ever others offers at same generation or even generation newer.

It is a thing that one needs to push to limits and find out by themselves.

CIPA has a standard testing method, that doesn't even test how good the actual system is, only that on that specific test it is compared to others, but not in real world test.

And as I understand the whole thread, Olympus is only one having how 7.5 stops Sync-IS (based CIPA) and 7 stops without sync-IS. No one others has that at this moment.

And reality is that even if a CIPA test says 2.5 stops, it can be in real world far far better or worse. Because CIPA doesn't test real world holding methods/situations.

Example how you would rate a E-P5 IBIS based CIPA test, based Olympus original claim and then your results and then some other people results who can use all the time 42mm focal length with f/5.6 and gets 1.3" exposure times just by standing? Is it 3.5 stops, 4 stops or 5.5 stops? Is it really calculated from 1/80 rule or last without any IS or CIPA method or what?

How hard evidence can be made, when it can't be made?

Is it dishonest if a person with Parkinson's can't get more than 1 stop or if a skilled can get 10 stops?

You are again claiming that Olympus is dishonest, yet you demand proofs and say as well that you have not seen any hard evidence.

How can you call any company dishonest when you have not seen any proofs to support that? So why you are so hostile toward Olympus without any proofs?

 

[Tommi K1]

I never claimed a 7 stop advantage. Here I agreed with you, it is 1.7 stops over a camera that can manage 6 stops. You must be confusing posts from different people. They are coming in so fast, by the time I type a response to someone, it posts to a different position from the one I responded to.

That is again one reason to stick in correct method, threaded mode instead flat mode. You will only reply to correct thread, to correct person and you can easily follow who says what and when.

 

[bobn2]

I've never seen any hard evidence given apart from a recital of Olympus' advertising claims, which have included from misleading to downright dishonest in the past.

You don't even want to accept such things, as of you seriously go to those Olympus cameras with their best IBIS and compare it to best what ever others offers at same generation or even generation newer.

I accept anything that is backed by evidence. So far, no-body here has presented any evidence whatsoever as to what the '7 stops' means in actual practice and how it compares with the other manufacturers' products. Just because Olympus says it doesn't make it true.

And as far as accepting what you say as 'the truth', Tommi, no way. Based on your past posts on matters much more serious that photography, your own grasp of reality is tenuous to say the least.

Evidence is the thing. A little of that helps make a case. Bluster doesn't.

--
Ride easy, William.
Bob

 

[wes mallard]

Gordon,are you going to provide a recommendation?

 

[MEDISN]

Some real world usage is what this thread is about But it’s only one data point

Amazing how quick the same regulars go negative.......

I leave it to the intellectuals to figure out how a 7 stop advantage together with depth of field advantage M43 benefit at least 1 or 2 lower ISO stops.....

That's fairly typical. There is no '7 stop advantage'. The competition also has IS. That IS will often run to 5.5 stops or so on CIPA tests, so that is 1.5 stops 'advantage', if CIPA tests really tell you much about the effectiveness of IS, for gains far beyond what they were designed to measure, and so long as you only eve shoot static subjects, which is not the usual case for a camera aimed at action photography.

Depend on what "the competition" is. If comparing to the 1Dx II or D5 then no, they do not offer 5.5 stops of IBIS.

They offer IS with all the long lenses. The 'IB' is just one of the techniques.

None of which are 5.5 stops. IBIS can stabilize every single lens you can mount to it as well as work in concert with OIS at longer focal lengths.

If I'm comparing to the A9 is 5-stops and good luck achieving that with any consistency in hand. I get 2-3 stops with Sony consistently. If comparing to other sport-oriented crop cameras - 7DII, D500, XT3, G9, EM1mkII, only the mFT options offer 5.5 stops IBIS.

So, why is only body IS allowed?

No one said this. IBIS works wonderfully with OIS but OIS alone does not provide 5.5 stops of stabilization and is limited the lenses that offer it.

For both the above, look up to the transcript to the emboldened statement of VideoPic to which I was replying, where he was claiming a 'seven stop advantage' due to IBIS. There's only a 'seven stop advantage'

I see what you're saying.

if you assume that the competition has no IS at all, and then only if you accept Olympus' promotional material about how effective their IS is.

Not hard to accept based on my experience with other Olympus models.

And I think you were the one accepting that CIPA ratings, on which this 'seven stops' is based, don't mean much.

Hard to tell what they mean in an individuals hands. Which is why I referenced my experience (certainly unique to me...which is all I care about anyway ;-) )

As for how many stops you see in real life with the various systems, neither you nor I know.

You may not, but I have my experience based on years of actual use across several bodies from Olympus and Sony. I've also shot side-by-side comparisons (scroll down a bit for the IBIS test).

I looked hard for independent comparative tests which showed the superiority that you claim for IBIS. I found none.

Optical IS also works and is likely just as effective with long focal lengths.

Cameras are not limited to long focal lengths. Many of the longer focal length mFT offerings have OIS as well.

Sure, but that still doesn't justify VideoPic's 'seven stops advantage'. It's baloney. I can't see why you're arguing to support it.

I understand where you're coming from. There is not a 7-stop advantage blanketed across every shot vs FF. I took it to mean 7-stop CIPA rated IBIS is an advantage. The magnitude of that advantage is certainly debatable.

The rest is answering points no-one made, so I'll pass on it.

You said "so long as you only eve shoot static subjects" which isn't the case. The EM1X is NOT limited to action photography and IBIS has benefits beyond whether the subject is static or not.

Trying just to keep on the subject and context which was the effectiveness of the EMIX as an action camera against competitive offering in that market. I'm not arguing against IBIS, which I'm a fan of. I'm just saying that comparisons that suggest that the competition has no IS at all, or that Olympus' is necessarily better, just because Olympus says so.

Agreed.

 

[VideoPic]

I've never seen any hard evidence given apart from a recital of Olympus' advertising claims, which have included from misleading to downright dishonest in the past.

You don't even want to accept such things, as of you seriously go to those Olympus cameras with their best IBIS and compare it to best what ever others offers at same generation or even generation newer.

I accept anything that is backed by evidence. So far, no-body here has presented any evidence whatsoever as to what the '7 stops' means in actual practice and how it compares with the other manufacturers' products. Just because Olympus says it doesn't make it true.

And as far as accepting what you say as 'the truth', Tommi, no way. Based on your past posts on matters much more serious that photography, your own grasp of reality is tenuous to say the least.

Evidence is the thing. A little of that helps make a case. Bluster doesn't.

I bet you even if you did get the evidence you claim you looking for you will immediately ping pong to your next favorite point to complain about Olympus.....what will it be, photons, more light, less noise....

You can just as well accept it, there are nothing like the Olympus IBIS....... if Nikon slap a IBIS logo on the Z7 it means absolutely nothing.....

 

[James Stirling]

Some real world usage is what this thread is about But it’s only one data point

Amazing how quick the same regulars go negative.......

I leave it to the intellectuals to figure out how a 7 stop advantage together with depth of field advantage M43 benefit at least 1 or 2 lower ISO stops.....

That's fairly typical. There is no '7 stop advantage'. The competition also has IS. That IS will often run to 5.5 stops or so on CIPA tests, so that is 1.5 stops 'advantage', if CIPA tests really tell you much about the effectiveness of IS, for gains far beyond what they were designed to measure, and so long as you only eve shoot static subjects, which is not the usual case for a camera aimed at action photography.

Depend on what "the competition" is. If comparing to the 1Dx II or D5 then no, they do not offer 5.5 stops of IBIS. If I'm comparing to the A9 is 5-stops and good luck achieving that with any consistency in hand. I get 2-3 stops with Sony consistently. If comparing to other sport-oriented crop cameras - 7DII, D500, XT3, G9, EM1mkII, only the mFT options offer 5.5 stops IBIS.

There are lenses with stabilisation covering from 15-800mm for FF and 15-1200mm { FF equiv AOV } for Nikon DX

Those aren't exactly IBIS are they Jim :-D

No but they certainly disprove the '7 stop advantage claim"

But yes you can get 3-4 stops (OIS) at certain focal lengths with certain lenses.

Yes you can get it on lenses from 15-800mm on FF , this includes macro lenses, high and low end zooms, all telephoto lenses , Macro lenses and even a number of primes. Tamron alone has VC in 35mm , 45mm and 85mm F/1.8 lenses

IBIS allows stabilization of every single lens you can mount to the body. Of course there are OIS lenses in mFT land too and they work rather better in Sync-IS/Dual-IS than any other system I've used.

I agree but other than video where IBIS is always useful , the case for IBIS is less strong than many here suggest . I have yet to see a multi second shot that I would define as "sharp" despite the claims . The results are amazing considering the exposure times but sharp , no

"Aimed" at action photography doesn't mean limited to action photography. Not all shots are taken at 1/1000. Even when they are freezing motion, if I'm on a moving platform (watercraft, automobile, train, ski's etc) stabilization is appreciated - especially in video and framing still shots at longer focal lengths.

A look at the recent 2018 Wildlife Photographer of the Year Winners, 8/14 were at or below 1/320, one as low as 1/8sec so stabilization of some sort (IBIS, OIS, Dual-IS, tripod) would be helpful. Is it required? No, but like many of the features in modern cameras they expand possibilities. If offered two versions of the same camera - 1 with IBIS and 1 without, I would choose IBIS each and every time and like dynamic range, the more available the better.

Whilst I agree that m43 IBIS feels better in this area. I think you have the mk II Sony cameras the mark III models upped the game in this area and pretty much every area .

I've used the A9. It provides the same 2-3 stops of stabilization the second gen Sony's did. Is there evidence of significant IBIS improvement from gen 2 to gen 3 Sony bodies?

The exact same evidence as there is from the claims about this camera . CIPA says 4.5 for the A7rII and 5.5 stops for the A7riii

Obviously these things are hard to test as we all have different shooting techniques and degrees of personal stabilisation { as you may imagine I am very unstable } . I am not sure what methodology CIPA uses to do their tests but it is the only independent tested ratings I am aware of . One would assume that the various IBIS systems are tested the same way

They are tested the same way (CIPA). As Bob alludes to, any relevance to real-world results is another matter.

You mean unsubstantiated hearsay posted by users as opposed to a presumably scientific and controlled measurements from CIPA ?

That's why I like to hear/see results from the same person using multiple systems so they can provide a relative baseline for expectations. In those instances you tend to hear compliments to other systems but usually ends with "not as good as Olympus" verbiage. Certainly any IBIS/OIS is better than none for my use

For video I find it a very handy feature for stills it is of minimal interst to me. I have used Olympus , Panasonic, Sony in camera IBIS and Nikon VR, Tamron VC and Sigma OS in lens stabilisation. For my still needs they are all good enough

but the difference in say the EM1mkII and A9 in stabilization is as noticeable as the difference in image quality. Sometimes they are very close, sometimes one is clearly ahead depending of course on the circumstances.

 

[James Stirling]

I've never seen any hard evidence given apart from a recital of Olympus' advertising claims, which have included from misleading to downright dishonest in the past.

You don't even want to accept such things, as of you seriously go to those Olympus cameras with their best IBIS and compare it to best what ever others offers at same generation or even generation newer.

I accept anything that is backed by evidence. So far, no-body here has presented any evidence whatsoever as to what the '7 stops' means in actual practice and how it compares with the other manufacturers' products. Just because Olympus says it doesn't make it true.

And as far as accepting what you say as 'the truth', Tommi, no way. Based on your past posts on matters much more serious that photography, your own grasp of reality is tenuous to say the least.

Evidence is the thing. A little of that helps make a case. Bluster doesn't.

I bet you even if you did get the evidence you claim you looking for you will immediately ping pong to your next favorite point to complain about Olympus.....what will it be, photons, more light, less noise....

You can just as well accept it, there are nothing like the Olympus IBIS....... if Nikon slap a IBIS logo on the Z7 it means absolutely nothing.....

What are you talking about Nikon's IBIS is tested and rated the exact same as everyone else's by CIPA. What fans claim is a different and unsubstantial matter. Given the wide diversity in the stability of users the CIPA data is probably an ideal case scenario

 

[bobn2]

Evidence is the thing. A little of that helps make a case. Bluster doesn't.

I bet you even if you did get the evidence you claim you looking for you will immediately ping pong to your next favorite point to complain about Olympus.....what will it be, photons, more light, less noise....

I've never 'complained about Olympus'. I've made comments on Olympus' conduct, which is a matter or actual and legal fact. That makes it no better or worse tan many other companies. I think that by and large its products are very good. I've talked admiringly about how cute its marketing operation is. I have nothing against Olympus at all. However, its cute marketing does have the unfortunate side effect is that there are a lot of Olympus fans who have been taken in by it and then proceed to fill the web with nonsense based on their interpretation of Olympus' marketing statements, resulting in the pollution of the web with nonsense that needs to be countered. You yourself run a whole blog devoted to such stuff.

You can just as well accept it, there are nothing like the Olympus IBIS....... if Nikon slap a IBIS logo on the Z7 it means absolutely nothing.....

Evidence?

--

Ride easy, William.
Bob

 

[bobn2]

You mean unsubstantiated hearsay posted by users as opposed to a presumably scientific and controlled measurements from CIPA ?

The real problem with metrics like CIPA's is that companies design to produce good figures in the metric, rather than systems that necessarily do a better job. The scandal surrounding Diesel emission measurements comes to mind.

 

[Wu Jiaqiu]

You mean unsubstantiated hearsay posted by users as opposed to a presumably scientific and controlled measurements from CIPA ?

The real problem with metrics like CIPA's is that companies design to produce good figures in the metric, rather than systems that necessarily do a better job. The scandal surrounding Diesel emission measurements comes to mind.

didn't something similar happen to graphics cards for some of the tests?