How limiting is lack of image stabilization in Pany bodies?

Started Feb 13, 2013 | Questions thread
idiotekniQues Senior Member • Posts: 1,255
Re: Old School

mrxak wrote:

idiotekniQues wrote:

mrxak wrote:

idiotekniQues wrote:

mrxak wrote:

Anders W wrote:

mrxak wrote:

I guess I'm old school, because all this newfangled stabilization seems fairly superfluous to me. So far my experience has been with Panasonic bodies and I'll leave OIS on if it's available with the lens I'm shooting with, but for lenses without, I don't care one bit. It makes no difference.

When I started with photography, digital wasn't even a thing yet, and when I got some formal training, it was with film. There was certainly no image stabilization involved with any photography I did until I got into M43. Heck, excluding point-and-shoot cameras, M43 is the first time I'm doing color photography.

So, anyway, decisions about shutter speed and such are second nature to me. I've used beanbags before. I've shot on tripods with a mechanical remote shutter release. You know, one of those little pokey-things in a cable. I know how to get pictures without making them all blurry (unless blur is something I want!).

Any shot where image stabilization is going to be a critical factor in the outcome of the picture is probably well outside your typical experience in photography. I'd even bet I can get the same exact shot without image stabilization, too, with a little creativity. Long shutter times can be compensated for easily, cheaply, if you have a bit of experience and enough motivation.

I suppose that what you mean when you say that "long shutter times can be compensated for easily, cheaply, if you have a bit of experience and enough motivation" is a sturdy tripod. As far as I am aware, that's the only thing that can really replace as opposed to merely supplement a stabilization system built into the camera or lens (but let me know if I am wrong).

Such a tripod merely weighs like an FF body or two with a bulk of three or four so no problem for MFT users who bought into the system on the promise of getting into the real big and heavy stuff. They are also really slow and conspicuous in use so that everyone around will know that you are a serious photographer. Only advantages as far as I can see, wouldn't you say? So who really needs any other kind of stabilization system?

Or a monopod, or a bean bag, or resting your arm against something as you hold the camera, or any other technique that accomplishes the same thing. There are many. Photography is not a new thing, and plenty of folks have been taking pictures in all sorts of situations for a long time with lots of success. They developed ways of getting around problems, and those ways are still available to everyone to use with any camera.

I didn't say OIS or IBIS is bad, just that it's superfluous. Good technique and a little creativity will provide you with plenty of cheap, easy solutions. The OP was asking if Panasonic's lack of IBIS is a limitation. It's not, because IBIS is just the latest solution to a problem with many solutions. Nobody needs IBIS. You can accomplish the exact same things without it.

nobody needed digital over film either. and no, you can't accomplish the same things without it if you are smart about using it along with smart techniques.

do you believe any technological advancement lets us do anything we couldn't before btw?

again, your logic sucks.

Okay, I get it. You really love your IS and can't take pictures without it. That's fine and good for you. I don't. Maybe the OP doesn't either. That's my point.

i acknowledged that you don't need stabilization for all kinds of photography. it's you that has the problem acknowledging that in a similar case to case comparison, it can be a definite tool to get a shot that you couldnt otherwise.

You are arguing that if a camera is perfectly still, regardless of method achieving that, the results are not identical across methods. You seem to think that OIS/IBIS is doing something when the camera is still. You seem to think that OIS/IBIS is the only method of achieving stabilization.

I've never said that IS is not a tool, I've just said that it's one of many tools. Your entire argument against me has been totally bizarre from the beginning, either misunderstanding what I'm saying and overreacting, or trying to make me into a strawman to push an agenda.

The OP wanted to know if lack of IBIS was a limitation. It is not, because the results of IBIS can be achieved in a variety of ways without IBIS. It's okay if you don't believe that. You're wrong, but that's okay and it's clear to everyone else. If you do believe, it, then why are you arguing with me?

you are consistently just making stuff up to suit you. i never said there were no other methods to stabilization. a blatant lie by you.

your argument, which i quoted above and will gladly quote again if you can't remember what you typed is that there are always other means to getting your shot, thus  IS is superfluous.

sorry buddy, but guess what, we don't always have tripods, and while there are techniques to get the best stability or exposure for a shot once we use those which is pretty easy if you are smart, IS gives you multiple stops of advantage to use whether it is with shutter speed or ISO or aperture.

would you like me to quote you again with your clearly wrong assertion?

-- hide signature --

 idiotekniQues's gear list:idiotekniQues's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Olympus E-M5 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm 1:2.8 Macro +2 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow