I've both a LX3 and a GF1. I think IBIS is way overrated with the 20mm. If you're shooting at the supposedly minimum shutter speed of 1/40s you'll find it's much more likely that your subject is motion blurred rather than camera shake. IBIS is a useful feature for longer manual lenses though which is why I'm considering an Olympus body as well; that may or may not apply to your case, though. For many other lenses AF lenses (from Panasonic) on your Panasonic body you will have OIS anyway which is usually better than IBIS.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I'd prefer the GF1's handling initially, though I don't think it's impossible to relearn another interface after a few days of usage.
Well, not all lenses are stabilized, which is my main point. None of the two primary lenses I am thinking of buying are stabilized: 7-14mm, and 20mm/1.7. (To be fair, I'm leaning towards the 9-18mm instead because of the cheaper price, but the point remains: on an Olympus camera, these lenses would all be stabilized, but on the GF1 they wouldn't.)
This is definitely less of a selling point for me, since it's possible to fix in PP. Though I would say that the dpreview.com review pointed out not just less saturation and "punch", but also offset colors in e.g. blue skies. Those things are harder to correct I imagine. Again, not impossible, so less of a big deal for me.
Of course, it's the best among the two available pancake lenses in the m4/3 lineup. But again, on an Oly camera, it's also stabilized.
Not as much as the IBIS, to be honest. In fact, if I got the GF1, I'd pick the one with the 20mm/1.7 kit, so I would effectively save money. That said, a kit zoom might be handy to have in some cases, so maybe I'd end up buying a zoom lens anyway at some point, which would make the savings aspect less of a factor.
Yes, but not for the two lenses I would be using the most: the 20mm/1.7 and a wideangle lens (probably the 9-18 mm). Those would be closest to what I'm used to with my LX3. At some point I will probably get a zoom lens too, and of course the Panasonic zoom is stabilized, but for these other two lenses, an Olympus camera is the only option if you want stabilization.
I agree about the importance of all the other aspects -- an intuitive interface and a crisp display is certainly a nice thing to have -- but at the end of the day it's the resulting photo that matters the most to me. It's impossible to post-process away motion blur...
Good to know. Yeah, the LX3 seems to work well in iAuto mode, which is what I always set it to when handing it over to others. I personally only use Aperture priority.
Interesting. I only shoot in jpeg mode, so I don't have that problem on my LX3. I find the burst mode to be quite snappy for my needs (little more than 2 shots per second).
They're not interesting to me because of their added bulk. I always thought I needed a viewfinder (coming from the PowerShot S3 IS which had both a viewfinder and an articulating screen), but when switching to the LX3, I rarely missed it. They're certainly nice to have when you need them, but in most cases I'm doing fine without them and would prefer the more slim body instead.
I would agree with your points here. This is where I'm leaning now, too.
I mostly agree. Though I can't help but thinking that the E-P1 and E-P2 are much more attractive than the E-PL1.
Indeed. Thanks for the input!
Coincidently those two lenses are two perfect examples where IS doesn't really matter (which maybe the reason why Panasonic opted not to include one, hint hint). As I said: as soon as you have moving objects it's game over for IS with wide-ish lenses as you'll need faster shutter speeds anyway to prevent motion blur of your subjects. IS mostly helps with long lenses and mid-range shutter speeds where subject motion is already taken care off and camera shake becomes the #1 problem.
Right, but IS is not going to help you with motion blur, only with camera shake.
My bad for phrasing that badly. iAuto works pretty well, it's iISO and Auto ISO that doesn't. While the LX3 allows you to set a minimum acceptable shutter speed, the GF1 will generally (i.e. hardcoded) consider 1/30s acceptable...
The writeout delay is the problem. The LX3 blocks while writing out files. Of course with 10MP JPEGs only and a fast card that'll only take a fraction of a second which might be hardly noticeable and/or not considered to be a problem. With JPEGs+RAW the camera has to process and write out about 16MB which will take somewhere between 2.5s and 3.5s per frame in which you can do zilch. Use burst mode in that case and you're looking at a hefty up to 15s time out. The µ43rds will let you keep operating, (re-)focusing and shooting while the camera is writing out in the background as long as there's enough free space in the buffer. I hear that with the Olys you can't access the menus while the camera is writing (no idea whether that's really the case, though
).EPL1 kit + 20 is comparable to GF1/20 & zoom ... so long as you were planning to get a zoom.
I've been using KM then Sony DSLRs for 5 years now with IBIS and I appreciate that feature. That said, particularly for 'social settings' it's especially useful with longer focal lengths. The reason I say that is I typically try to keep shutter speeds at 1/60s or faster when possible, 1/30s at a minimum, to avoid motion blur. At 1/60s, motion blur occurs sometimes, but it's usually not objectionable. From 1/30 to 1/60, it happens more often; sometimes acceptable, sometimes not. Below 1/30s, motion blur ruins enough people pics that it's usually not worth shooting. And a 40mm equivalent lens on a mirrorless camera can be handheld pretty well at those shutter speeds. Also, I don't count on critical sharpness when shooting low light scenes - I'm typically up at ISO 1600 (if there's more light, I try to keep the shutter speed up) and I'm already losing detail by shooting at ISO 1600. So in short, IS is useful in many situations and all else equal, I'd want it, but I could live without it.
Rumors indicate that Sony is going in-lens with their NEX system, too. Though those same rumors suggest that even the 16mm prime will have IS. We'll see.
OP already said it did matter to him, though.
But IS at your disposal isn't a bad thing, correcting handheld movement is a definite plus for many situations. The question is simply whether you prefer it in your lenses or body.
You seem to be reaching a bit to explain how IS may not help with certain situations. While this is certainly true, doesn't it follow that it WILL help for other situations, and that having it at your disposal is hardly a bad thing..?
Did OP say he'd only be shooting from a tripod..?
I think this is highly dependent on individual use, not a 'non-existent' benefit. I'm not a professional by any stretch, but I don't think 30mm or below necessarily contraindicates IS.
Not trying to put words in his mouth, but I think by 'motion' he was referring to camera shake.
You can indeed access the menus while the E-PL1 is writing.I hear that with the Olys you can't access the menus while the camera is writing (no idea whether that's really the case, though
It can be useful, sure. My point is that with OPs suggested use IBIS may by far not as useful as OP thinks it might be. And in cases where it is useful in-lens IS is quite a bit more effective than IBIS. So unless OP is looking into longer MF lenses IBIS may have little or no benefit.
Not sure why you're so fixated on the concept of motion blur ruining shots. The important thing is to get the background/architectural elements sharp, and IBIS will help do that. If I'm walking around at night or out at a bar with friends I'm happy to get some motion conveyed in my photos via blur. All the better that I don't need to haul around a tripod.
Actually I'm not. Quite the opposite. Both freezing motion and smoothing motion allow for plenty creative possibilities.
IS will never be able to replace a tripod. It will only help you in a very narrow problem scope. If you can get 2 stops of shake reduction (which is very optimistic, typically IBIS will more likely get you only a half or 1 stop), you will be able to shoot at 1/10s of a second instead of 1/40s (taking the 20mm f1.7 for example) and still get the scenery sharp while the people are inrecognizably blurred (unless of course the can stand more still than you can hold your camera
). In that case IS helped you. Also if you want the motion effect and would have needed to shoot at ISO 800 to get the scenery sharp, you will be able to switch down to ISO 400 and and get a less noisy shot with even more motion blur and the scenery still sharp.Nope, it's a good one. However I very much doubt that this is shot handheld, this looks like a several second tripod/stabilized ground (i.e. with IS off ) exposure or even a multiple exposure using a short and a long shutter time. Mind you I find the different DOF on the left and the right side a little bit "unusual"...I don't think this picture (not mine) loses any points due to motion blue.
