Why no Olympus m43 body without IBIS?

I know people will argue Olympus includes IBIS to compensate for their lenses without OIS, but if you look at their older 4/3 bodies, there was always small, low-cost bodies without IBIS, despite the similar con with their 4/3 lenses. So why is it different now with m4/3?

There's clearly a drive to make m4/3 cameras smaller and drive down cost, IBIS is an obstacle with that goal.

The only reason I can see is because of Panasonic, they're more involved with m4/3 than they ever were with 4/3, they're a direct competitor and IBIS seem to serve as a marketing ploy to differentiate Olympus cameras from Panasonic's and keep people from buying Panasonic lenses with OIS if they already have IBIS in Olympus camera bodies.

Oly lead the field with IBIS afaik. So it's not surprising they tout it in all their models today. Most want any edge a feature advantage can offer, so why not? And yes, it's the alternative to OIS offered by Panasonic.

Since IBIS is ubiquitous with Oly, having a separate run for non-IBIS sensor assemblies I think would drive up costs.

The Pens are system format cameras - where one buys into the system spends money on lenses and accessories and such. If I'm any model, the savings a non-IBIS body MIGHT offer would be trivial in the scheme of many adopters.

--
...Bob, NYC
http://www.bobtullis.com

"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.

I had a 410 without IBIS which was a lovable camera. However miniaturisation goes on, so it makes no sense to be without it now.

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

The no IBIS 4/3 bodies were a transitional arrangement. Now that IBIS is established it would probably not help financially to have additional SKU (stock keeping units) without IBIS. It now costs additional design effort to leave IBIS out.

amalric said:

I had a 410 without IBIS which was a lovable camera. However miniaturisation goes on, so it makes no sense to be without it now.

Click to expand...

Olympus IBIS and Panasonic OIS are unreliable in too many instances. There is a lot of discussion of that in this forum. I have yet to find a situation where IBIS gives me an acceptably sharp photo. Yes, it can provide a better photo, but I've never seen a truly sharp photo come from an IBIS shot.

High shutter speeds and Gitzo are my friends.

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA

bluevellet said:

I know people will argue Olympus includes IBIS to compensate for their lenses without OIS, but if you look at their older 4/3 bodies, there was always small, low-cost bodies without IBIS, despite the similar con with their 4/3 lenses. So why is it different now with m4/3?

There's clearly a drive to make m4/3 cameras smaller and drive down cost, IBIS is an obstacle with that goal.

The only reason I can see is because of Panasonic, they're more involved with m4/3 than they ever were with 4/3, they're a direct competitor and IBIS seem to serve as a marketing ploy to differentiate Olympus cameras from Panasonic's and keep people from buying Panasonic lenses with OIS if they already have IBIS in Olympus camera bodies.

Click to expand...

RANT...

IBIS and related technologies are a crutch for those unwilling to exercise good technique.

Olympus created the expectation of IBIS, now all the happy snappers think they need it. Olympus cannot back away from this (my opinion only) fundamentally flawed technology. IBIS did not work reliably on my E-5 nor does it work reliably on my E-PL3. I get ghosting and blurred images even in the shutter speed ranges that IBIS should help the most.

Gitzo is my friend. 20+ stops of rock-solid IS.

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA

James Pilcher said:

amalric said:

I had a 410 without IBIS which was a lovable camera. However miniaturisation goes on, so it makes no sense to be without it now.

Click to expand...

Olympus IBIS and Panasonic OIS are unreliable in too many instances. There is a lot of discussion of that in this forum. I have yet to find a situation where IBIS gives me an acceptably sharp photo. Yes, it can provide a better photo, but I've never seen a truly sharp photo come from an IBIS shot.

High shutter speeds and Gitzo are my friends.

Click to expand...

So what do you do when you don't have your tripod with you?

Go home without the shot?

I asked you this once before and you didn't answer.

This is your second chance.

Day Hiker said:

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA

Click to expand...

Tedolph

There are some self haters here that don't realise their ridicule.

One must wait patiently

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

If you don't like IBIS, why not turn it off all the time?

For me at least, it helps. When shutter speed is too low, IBIS seems to work. At least compare to shots without IBIS, they are better. I'd rather have IBIS than without. Its especially useful with prime lenses that don't feature OIS.

I used to have Sony Alpha system and it was useful. It still is in this format.

Gitzo is also my friend, but it is sometimes not available.

IMHO, IBIS (or any of the other flavors via Minolta, Sony, Pentax or whomever) has enabled me to take thousands of photos that I would otherwise not gotten, and I have never once noticed ghosting (except for a few Minolta shots on a Gitzo where I didn't turn it off).

Again, IMHO, IBIS combined with good technique, and sharpness bracketing, is a revelation.

1/20 on a 12mm (ie 24mm equivalent). I'm below the 1-1 ratio so this should be dicey, but IBIS provided cushion.



Similarly, this is still with the 12mm at 1/6



IBIS is not just marketing, but frequently allows me to do things that otherwise would never work.
--
http://jcharding.zenfolio.com/

James Pilcher said:

Olympus IBIS and Panasonic OIS are unreliable in too many instances. There is a lot of discussion of that in this forum. I have yet to find a situation where IBIS gives me an acceptably sharp photo. Yes, it can provide a better photo, but I've never seen a truly sharp photo come from an IBIS shot.

Click to expand...

James,

I understand that there's a lot of discussion about IBIS. I follow these discussions with great interest (even if I try not to intervene) but I can tell you 1 thing .. based on my very own experience:

I own a E-520/12-60mm since July 2008 and an E-P2 (using that same lens via adapter) since October 2010. The E-520 has got now slightly over 40k shots (I'm tempted to say that close to 100% of them were shot with IBIS on..) and my E-P2 approx. 12k (again, regardless of "safe" shutter speeds or not - note that I do only use monopods.. no tripods).

I do not have any .. and I mean any .. sharpness issue. The E-P2 is slightly less reliable vs. the E-520 as it tends to give more false positive AF locks.. but that's unrelated to IBIS..

I can roughly tell you that 95 to 99% of my shots are totally sharp with IBIS on .. both on my E-P2 and E-520.

So either Olympus has "recently" introduced a problem with IBIS in their post E-P2 cameras, or there are large batches of cameras that are somehow faulty.. I don't know.. but your camera or lens must have a problem if you can't get sharp "IBIS" shots.. because I have exactly, the very opposite experience (and please note that I'm not a camera "collector" .. I actually use them !!)

PS: Very recently, a person here posted a very interesting thread showing rain drops "zig zagging" when IBIS was on.. I did the test last WE .. neither my E-P2 nor E-520 showed that sympton .. Maybe I'm just a lucky person.

Without IBIS on my e520, I would not have this shot to treasure. I'd gladly include it in my e520 JUST to get this one shot.

I'm not a Pocketable Fanatic, so this caught me eye.

bluevellet said:

There's clearly a drive to make m4/3 cameras smaller and drive down cost, IBIS is an obstacle with that goal.

Click to expand...

There's always an effort to drive down costs, but how much smaller than an E-PM1 or GF3 does a m43 body need to be?
http://camerasize.com/compare/#163,167

Regardless of IBIS, anything smaller belongs to the realm of the compacts. Unless there's a flush mount lens for m43, no matter how small the body, the lens will always make it chunkier than a slick compact.
--
http://453c.smugmug.com/

tedolf said:

James Pilcher said:

Olympus IBIS and Panasonic OIS are unreliable in too many instances. There is a lot of discussion of that in this forum. I have yet to find a situation where IBIS gives me an acceptably sharp photo. Yes, it can provide a better photo, but I've never seen a truly sharp photo come from an IBIS shot.

High shutter speeds and Gitzo are my friends.

Click to expand...

So what do you do when you don't have your tripod with you? Go home without the shot? I asked you this once before and you didn't answer.

Click to expand...

That was 15 days ago and I did answer contemporaneously. Please tell the truth. It's one thing to be controversial on these fora, it's quite another to lie in an attempt to damage another's reputation.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=39859462

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA

The same can apply for OIS. While at least in the E-P1 (haven't tested the onewer Pens that much) IBIS really makes a big difference on some of my lenses (notably the 45-200) OIS just makes matters worse in many cases.

So i agree that fast shutter speeds, a tripod/bench or whatever are prefereble (i have a GF1 so use two of my lenses without stabilisation). But in many situations (f.e. "staged" party portraits) IBIS and lenses like the 20mmm are worth their weight in gold.

James Pilcher said:

bluevellet said:

I know people will argue Olympus includes IBIS to compensate for their lenses without OIS, but if you look at their older 4/3 bodies, there was always small, low-cost bodies without IBIS, despite the similar con with their 4/3 lenses. So why is it different now with m4/3?

There's clearly a drive to make m4/3 cameras smaller and drive down cost, IBIS is an obstacle with that goal.

The only reason I can see is because of Panasonic, they're more involved with m4/3 than they ever were with 4/3, they're a direct competitor and IBIS seem to serve as a marketing ploy to differentiate Olympus cameras from Panasonic's and keep people from buying Panasonic lenses with OIS if they already have IBIS in Olympus camera bodies.

Click to expand...

RANT...

IBIS and related technologies are a crutch for those unwilling to exercise good technique.

Olympus created the expectation of IBIS, now all the happy snappers think they need it. Olympus cannot back away from this (my opinion only) fundamentally flawed technology. IBIS did not work reliably on my E-5 nor does it work reliably on my E-PL3. I get ghosting and blurred images even in the shutter speed ranges that IBIS should help the most.

Gitzo is my friend. 20+ stops of rock-solid IS.

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA

Click to expand...

--
What´s that noise?

From one of the Canon Forums:

'I just came back from my first holiday with the 5D II (I think my wife was there as well). '

453C said:

bluevellet said:

There's clearly a drive to make m4/3 cameras smaller and drive down cost, IBIS is an obstacle with that goal.

Click to expand...

There's always an effort to drive down costs, but how much smaller than an E-PM1 or GF3 does a m43 body need to be?
http://camerasize.com/compare/#163,167

Regardless of IBIS, anything smaller belongs to the realm of the compacts. Unless there's a flush mount lens for m43, no matter how small the body, the lens will always make it chunkier than a slick compact.

Click to expand...

Agree, if you want smaller than the already diminutive E-PM1/E-PL3, get an S100 or XZ-1. Oh, sorry, the XZ-1 has IBIS, drat you Olympus !

A pretty silly converstion, IMHOP, given the already very small sizes of the latest round of Olympus mFT's and the fact that if you don't care for IBIS you can simply shut it off. People will complain about pretty much anything, restores my faith.

--
Sailin' Steve

James Pilcher said:

bluevellet said:

I know people will argue Olympus includes IBIS to compensate for their lenses without OIS, but if you look at their older 4/3 bodies, there was always small, low-cost bodies without IBIS, despite the similar con with their 4/3 lenses. So why is it different now with m4/3?

There's clearly a drive to make m4/3 cameras smaller and drive down cost, IBIS is an obstacle with that goal.

The only reason I can see is because of Panasonic, they're more involved with m4/3 than they ever were with 4/3, they're a direct competitor and IBIS seem to serve as a marketing ploy to differentiate Olympus cameras from Panasonic's and keep people from buying Panasonic lenses with OIS if they already have IBIS in Olympus camera bodies.

Click to expand...

RANT...

IBIS and related technologies are a crutch for those unwilling to exercise good technique.

Click to expand...

This is a little harsh. I take my tripod whenever and wherever I can, but there are circumstances where you cannot take it or use it. For example I am something of an avid historian and often visit archives where tripods are banned. They ban them for the simple reason that people tend to trip over them and then fire a lawyer at the archive for allowing tripods to be there in the first place. One particular archive I visit quite often encourages good photographers to create digital copies of public documents and provides copy stands for patrons to use. Often these are all in use leaving one with the only option of hand-held copying. IBIS and OIS can be useful in these circumstances. I know I use the OIS on my 45mm f2.8 in these circumstances, whereas on my private copy stand or tripod at home it remains definitely switched off.

Day Hiker said:

Olympus created the expectation of IBIS, now all the happy snappers think they need it. Olympus cannot back away from this (my opinion only) fundamentally flawed technology. IBIS did not work reliably on my E-5 nor does it work reliably on my E-PL3. I get ghosting and blurred images even in the shutter speed ranges that IBIS should help the most.

Click to expand...

Others have made the point that there are circumstances where IBIS can be useful and that it is now so integrated into Olympus's manufacturing and stockholding processes that it could be financially dangerous to eliminate it.

Surely the answer for IBIS haters, people concerned about its compatibility with video shooting, and those who find it incompatible with their technique, is to simply switch it off?

Day Hiker said:

Gitzo is my friend. 20+ stops of rock-solid IS.

Click to expand...

Velbon is a pretty good friend of mine also, but it does not stop me using hand-held OIS when the conditions suit that.

When you want the shot, you need the crutch

I don't know about you, but my hands are only good for 1/50 on 100mm equiv lenses and 1/15 with 28mm equiv

OIS and IBIS allow me to go one or two stops lower and I've pulled off 1/4 sec shots handheld and braced

The E-PM1 is simply small enough, while even the E-4xx models weren't compact. A smaller Pen would be uncomfortable or restricted to pancake lenses.

James Pilcher said:

RANT...

IBIS and related technologies are a crutch for those unwilling to exercise good technique.

Olympus created the expectation of IBIS, now all the happy snappers think they need it. Olympus cannot back away from this (my opinion only) fundamentally flawed technology. IBIS did not work reliably on my E-5 nor does it work reliably on my E-PL3. I get ghosting and blurred images even in the shutter speed ranges that IBIS should help the most.

Gitzo is my friend. 20+ stops of rock-solid IS.

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA

Click to expand...

i fully agree with you, i think it's a very hyped feature, Olympus had to use in body stabilisation other wise their whole lens catalogue would need redesigning, good for those who get some use out of it but i manage just fine without it
--
i like turtles