Different Olympus IS systems - what is the difference?

Is there a practical difference between the IS system of the EP-1/2/3 and other PEN cameras? I can't seem to find concrete info easily.

My google search for PEN IS (I kid you not - it was one of many search phrases I tried) didn't provide the information I was looking for and most online reviewers, even the ones who have some clue what they are writing about, simply either spout the Oly line that the PL and PM system is reduced in effectiveness without backing it up, or conjecture rather idly that the Oly line is just marketing and that the systems are either about the same or of about equal effectiveness.

Could someone knowledgeable please share their experience with me on this one? I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks.

Definitely looking forward to hearing what the actual difference between the Olympus PEN IS systems is.

Althoough I am in no position to offer a "knowledgeable" or authoratative statement, perhaps a bit of the history may help you. Oly first introduced IBIS in some of their larger DSLRs (the E3, E510, E520, E30, and E5 --others?), and many users have found it to be very effective.

When Oly announced the smaller-body E620, they said it would have a smaller IBIS system developed for their (not yet announced) micro 4/3 cameras. Indeed, the E620 and the E-P1, P2, and P3 do appear to share the same (smaller) IBIS system. The consensus of user opinion is that this smaller IBIS is about 1 stop less effective than the older system used in the larger bodies.

When Oly announced the E-PL1, they again announced that it would have a new and smaller IBIS. Many users have found that this is, again, about 1 stop less effective than that in the E620 and E-Px. This minimal IBIS is also in the E-PL2 and (I can't prove it) almost certainly in the E-PL3 and E-PM1.

My own experience with the E510, E620, and E-PL1 is that indeed each generation has reduced the IBIS effectiveness by about 1 stop.
--
Robert

You won't find much about objective(!) measurements of image stabilisation effectiveness.. other than what the manufacturer claims (and that, you can find on the spec sheet of each review).

A good reason for that is that there's no reliable way to measure it - I'm simplifying my demonstration a bit as I just want to highlight my point without writing a dissertation:

Handshake comprises a frequency, an amplitude as well as variation of frequency and variation of amplitude. These 4 factors are totally random.. not only do they vary between individuals but also vary for a given individual.

Now take 2 cameras and try to measure the effectiveness of OIS on a shake that comprises 4 random attributes .. You see, it doesn't make any sense..

My wife and I own the E-5, EP1, EP2, EP3, EPL1, and EPL2.

My subjective impression is that the E-5 has the best IS by a large margin. The EP1/2/3 are a lot worse than the E-5, but better than the EPL1/2 by a smaller margin.

I personally find the IS in the EPL1/2 to be marginal -- it doesn't make a huge difference for me and when I try to rely on it often end up with blurry shots.

On the other hand the IS in the E-5 is often amazing -- yielding razor sharp pictures at ridiculously long shutter speeds.

kermitG9 said:

You won't find much about objective(!) measurements of image stabilisation effectiveness.. other than what the manufacturer claims (and that, you can find on the spec sheet of each review).

A good reason for that is that there's no reliable way to measure it - I'm simplifying my demonstration a bit as I just want to highlight my point without writing a dissertation:

Handshake comprises a frequency, an amplitude as well as variation of frequency and variation of amplitude. These 4 factors are totally random.. not only do they vary between individuals but also vary for a given individual.

Now take 2 cameras and try to measure the effectiveness of OIS on a shake that comprises 4 random attributes .. You see, it doesn't make any sense..

Click to expand...

Good summary.

Individuals vary and added lens sizes and weights vary so there's no hard and fast numbers for any of this stuff.

All I know are the results from my own tests.

With an early pocket camera with IBIS I get about 3x shutter speed improvement.
With Panasonic LX3 OIS I get about 3x shutter speed improvement.
With Olympus E-PL1 IBIS and any lens I get about 10x shutter speed improvement.
With Pan 14-45mm lens OIS I get about 10x shutter speed improvement.

The 10x shutter speed improvement is about 3 stops, maybe E-P1/2 do better but I have never tried them.

Using VF-2 and against the head holding I get very slightly worse results than using the LCD. So maybe the IBIS is tuned to suit my LCD holding stance??

The caution is that IBIS always adds tiny blur to any shot taken at safe shutter speeds so is best left off until needed.

I've never bothered to investigate if that tiny blur is also added to slow shutter speeds, because I don't care as the improvement over a wobbly hand-held shot is significant and of acceptable quality.

Early Pen info seemed to say that the E-P1 could get 4 stop improvement but for later models that claim (or any claim) seems to have disappeared. See the E-P1 specs http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/products/dslr/ep1/spec/ for mention of 4 stops. "Max. approx. 4 EV steps (depends on the lens type and shooting condition)" . Also E-P2 specs say 4 stops. There's no such claim in any of the other specs.

Maybe they dropped making claims because only the maybe one in five "normal" people in this world could use the camera in a way to get that 4 stops or whatever, the rest are too wobbly for all sorts of reasons. Even the wind blowing makes a difference.

It is wise to regard the IBIS as an emergency aid, never as a full time crutch. The best advice is to add a neat monopod to the kit, or to get a decent tripod for really serious stuff.

Regards............. Guy

Great info and experience from everyone there, thanks. I too noticed that the 4x claim for the EP1 had rather evaporated.

Since the in-body stabilisation was one of the things that drew me towards Olympus PEN and is one of my reasons to use the cameras, I'm really keen to continue to draw on peoples' experiences.

I was going to respond to the monopod suggestion with a slightly curt "If I want to use a monopod, I'll probably be shooting a bigger camera" but maybe a monopod would be a fantastic functional compliment to image stabilsation? I hadn't previously thought of that...

Anyway, thanks for the thoughts and please feel free to chime in with any other info/experience/thoughts.

47872Mike said:

I was going to respond to the monopod suggestion with a slightly curt "If I want to use a monopod, I'll probably be shooting a bigger camera" but maybe a monopod would be a fantastic functional compliment to image stabilsation? I hadn't previously thought of that...

Click to expand...

The monopod is the simplest way to improve things. Others play with the taut string or chain idea. A string with a tripod screw on one end and a loop on the other, stand holding your foot on the loop and pull gently up on the camera to keep the string reasonably tight - that is almost as good as a monopod.

Even hand holding sitting down adds one stop slower, sitting with elbows resting on a sturdy armrest adds 2 or maybe 3 stops at times for me.

All that and careful holding of the camera and gentle squeezing of the shutter do help.

I only turn on IBIS now when the review of the result shows that I needed it, or I am really down in very low shutter speeds where I know that I will fail with normal hand-holding.

Some use the Anti-Shock delay to add 1/8 second or more to the time between button press and exposure, that helps overcome the initial shock of the shutter having to close first before it opens again for the exposure.

Regards........... Guy
E-PL1 info.... http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~parsog/olyepl1/01-epl1-menu.html

47872Mike said:

Is there a practical difference between the IS system of the EP-1/2/3 and other PEN cameras? I can't seem to find concrete info easily.

Click to expand...

My guess is that there's no difference, and I base this on the following logic:

1. It's more expensive for Olympus to design multiple IS systems for different camera bodies; less expensive to use the same design in every camera.

2. If the EP-3 had better IS than the E-PM1, Olympus would be saying this loudly to give you a reason to spend an extra $400 on the E-P3 (which probably costs Olympus only an extra few dollars to manufacture).