It will never stabilize an OVF any better than an eggbeater can.
C'mon, is it that hard to realize how it works, and what it cannot do?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why not more IBIS?
- Thread starter Landscapephoto99
- Start date
C'mon, is it that hard to realize how it works, and what it cannot do?
. OIS is the only system that makes sense on a DSLR. Put down the 'prestige' nonsense and think for one or two seconds.
That, and having an unstabilized viewfinder that looks like an earthquake through a knot hole.
IBIS makes great sense on a mirror less or EVF camera. Unlike a DSLR where it makes zero sense.
With all due respect, this is nonsense.
well, that's just one example. i take still life also. not all our subjects are humans/animals. buildings, plants, windows, etc... then at events when i need to take photos of important people, i pose them & shoot, allowing me similar shooting situation as above.
even in street photography, i tend to shoot well below 1/50 unless trying to freeze motion. a man leaning on a wall reading the paper certainly doesnt need to be shot at 1/100. drop the iso & get the shot at 1/15 or 1/20 for maximum IQ.
the only limits are the ones we impose on ourselves.
even in street photography, i tend to shoot well below 1/50 unless trying to freeze motion. a man leaning on a wall reading the paper certainly doesnt need to be shot at 1/100. drop the iso & get the shot at 1/15 or 1/20 for maximum IQ.
the only limits are the ones we impose on ourselves.
The reason Panny won't abandon OIS is because they're a much more video oriented company than Oly. And IBIS sucks for video.
I realize that some people may believe that Oly IBIS is buttery smooth for video, but what they don't realize is that Oly has implemented a form of DIS on every MFT camera where they've done IBIS for video. So, when you see Oly's IBIS in action on YouTube, you're seeing a combination of IBIS and DIS. Note that I don't believe this is done for stills, as far as I know.
Even if Oly is using DIS with IBIS, why do I say it sucks, you might ask. Because IBIS is a much greater energy hog than OIS and will suck much more power when used continuously. This is precisely the reason IBIS doesn't run all the time (only when the shutter is pressed) while OIS does. And it's very probable that Oly uses a less energy hogging form of IBIS when video is engaged (hence the reports of less noise from IBIS in video than stills mode).
Why does IBIS suck so much more power, you might ask. Because the sensor element is often much larger and heavier than the lens element that has to be controlled, hence more power consumed to move it (and also slower and less responsive movements of the element). That's brings me to another point.
IBIS is less effective than Power OIS (by about 0.5 to 0.8 stops). And that difference will likely increase as the focal length is increased. The reasons are two-fold. First, the lens element being controlled will likely be much smaller than the sensor, so it can be moved quicker. This becomes more important as the focal length increases, because hand shake is amplified at greater focal lengths. Also, the compensatory movement of the lens element (OIS) can be magnified on the sensor, thus providing greater shake compensation than the actual motion of the lens element. This obviously can't be done with IBIS.
So, why doesn't Panny do IBIS along with OIS. I believe this has everything to do with competition. If Panny were the sole player in MFT, I have a feeling they would. But, for now, I believe they want to protect their lens OIS. And I don't blame them.
In summary, it's the limited interests (no video, etc.) on this forum that are the reason so many people don't understand why things are done the way they are. No offense.
I look forward to your response Anders.
Last edited:
Landscapephoto99
Senior Member
Ah, a Panny fan boy hehe. Good equipment. I actually really wish Oly at least leased some of their video innovations and fully articulating screen, but oh well.
"The reason Panny won't abandon OIS is because they're a much more video oriented company than Oly. And IBIS sucks for video.
I realize that some people may believe that Oly IBIS is buttery smooth for video, but "
but remember that whatever you may think, others really like the IBIS for video and it can be used with all those neat MF $$$$$$$$$$ fast prime lenses. I've walked while video taping with my SLR Magic 25mm t0.95, panning in and out in the dusk. Power OIS, not so much.
"The reason Panny won't abandon OIS is because they're a much more video oriented company than Oly. And IBIS sucks for video.
I realize that some people may believe that Oly IBIS is buttery smooth for video, but "
but remember that whatever you may think, others really like the IBIS for video and it can be used with all those neat MF $$$$$$$$$$ fast prime lenses. I've walked while video taping with my SLR Magic 25mm t0.95, panning in and out in the dusk. Power OIS, not so much.
Not true. They are pretty much the same at all focal lengths and Power OIS is the best of OIS. http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52613098
At the expense of their customers, some of whom convince themselves it doesn't matter.
Re-read what I wrote. You have absolutely NO option whatsoever to only use IBIS in video mode with Oly cameras. It's a combination of IBIS and DIS. Which one do you like better? It's hard to say since you can't separate them.
If you want to see how good DIS alone can be, take a look at the Sony action cam. Of course, it's easier on a camera like that because of the ultra wide angle and the fact that you have so much leeway with sensor cropping, but the point is made when you look at how smooth it is.
It's much more effective when you have a combination of IBIS/OIS and DIS. But Panny doesn't incorporate DIS into their cameras.
Wrong again. The objective tests at the Polish version of lenstip.com have consistently found Power OIS to be 0.5 to 0.8 stops better. Ask Anders about it. I got the links from his posts.
I would prefer to have a combo of the two, of course, along with the option of adding DIS. But I would never buy a lens without OIS (if it was a choice between two similar lenses with just this difference). That much is certain.
If I had a choice between two very similar bodies with IBIS being the only notable difference, then, yes, I'd go for the IBIS model, even if more expensive. But this is never the case (as it is with lenses). I shoot a lot of video and Oly is just not competitive. So, if it comes to a choice between great video or IBIS, I'd take great video any day of the week.
Sure, I'd like both, but it's not available yet.
Last edited:
assaft
Senior Member
Can you illustrate this?
Are you relying on Lenstip's tests? Note that they were done before the shutter shock issue was addressed by firmware (E-P5/EM-1(0)) in the form of an EFC. No conclusive tests here but logically and reportedly, engaging the EFC helped to get better stabilization from IBIS (i.e. more stop units). I don't know about OIS. In any event, the numbers you quote are specific to the current implementation and do not represent a technological barrier.
I don't know enough about OIS; but isn't the element responsible for the compensatory movement grows bigger with the lens size? in that case it's not necessarily much smaller than the sensor. I don't know about the weight.
On the other hand, generally one would prefer to fix a problem as close as possible to its source - to avoid implications that magnify the problem. The hand is the source of the shake in most cases and therefore stabilizing the body has the benefit of capturing the problem right where it starts and potentially this saves the need for fixing a magnified problem.
According to the data you provided they can safely do both and users with stabilized lens would use OIS, as it is claimed to be better. I don't quite see how they protect their lens OIS by not advancing their IBIS technology originally appeared in the GX7.
Out of curiosity, do you have sources in Panasonic based on which you report Panasonic marketing decisions?
I look forward to your response Anders.
Last edited:
The same applies to the E-PL3, and other earlier models with the two direction IBIS.
Lovely pic, by the way, Sergey -- exactly what panning is so very good for.
Cheers, geoff
--
Geoffrey Heard
Down and out in Rabaul in the South Pacific
Return to Karai Komana
By Geoffrey Heard “My brother’s Dava -- that’s our name for marriage settlement -- is happening in the village on October 29. Like to come?”...
pngtimetraveller.blogspot.com
…is good too. I am using it with my Panny lenses on my G6
Cheers, geoff
It's true in my experience. In fact. 1/10, 1/8, with shorter lenses, on the E-PL3. I don't know what the dynamics are, but maybe with the longer exposure there is an effect of other stuff which covers up any shutter shock double imaging. It seems to have been the experience of people on this forum generally that shutter shock is most evident in the 1/80-1/160 range, I think. Not much evidence of it at higher shutter speeds or at lower shutter speeds.
Spiro, I would contest that. it is a technology decision -- and a difficult one at that. Until the Oly finally developed the 5 way IBIS, its IBIS was generally inferior to the Panny OIS in my experience -- although it worked well in a narrow range of shutter speeds (around 1/10) with wide > normal lenses (again in my experience with the E-PL3).
Cheers, geoff
It's quite simply the fact that my understanding is that Oly always crops the video when IBIS is engaged. If you know of an Oly camera that doesn't crop the video when IBIS is engaged, I'd like to know.
Cropped video is synonymous with DIS. There's simply no other reason to do it. You're essentially using the sensor area not utilized to provide stabilization.
Except for the fact that every Oly camera with 5-axis IBIS has tested at 3 stops. And every Panny lens with Power OIS has tested at 3.5 to 3.8 stops.
I agree that it might not be a technological limitation for OIS, as lenses can get physically larger, possibly allowing more leeway for movement. I'm not sure how much more IBIS can advance, as there are limits to how far you can move the sensor before you dramatically outgrow the image circle provided by MFT lenses and negatively impact image quality.
It doesn't necessarily grow bigger with lens size as far as I know because the elements closer to the rear (i.e. closer to the sensor) probably don't get much bigger, even if the overall lens grows.
I believe the size of the sensor (and the corresponding image circle the lens has to project) is a bigger factor than the overall size of the lens, but I could be wrong. Most of the lenses I've seen with OIS have had the moving element near the rear of the lens (which tend to have much smaller elements), which, of course, also limits the amount of magnification of the motion that I had previously talked about.
You can actually tell where the moving element is by holding the lens in your hand and shaking it lightly. Put your hand along different parts of the lens (from front to back). The point at which you feel the element movement the most is where it's likely to be. This is an easy way to tell without tearing the lens apart. It also works for camcorders BTW.
I don't believe this is correct. Every source I've ever read has stated that it's better to have the correction further away from the body because your hand shake on the body is magnified at the lens, and ultimately, you want to correct the shake as close as you can to the front of the lens.
Because Oly and Sigma lenses look more attractive if both Panny and Oly stabilize the body. It's a protection of their lenses, and again, I don't blame them.
No.
I look forward to your response Anders.
assaft
Senior Member
No, I don't.
OK, but why do you call this DIS (I assume you mean Digital IS)? isn't it just cropping that complement the mechanical stabilization? in different words, I don't understand where you see stabilization that is digital in this workflow.
Regarding my question about illustration - i actually meant to post it one paragraph above - where you wrote that IBIS sucks for video. Can you be more specific why it sucks? is it the cropping or something else that causes the problem?
It's well known that Panasonic uses more advanced codecs and higher bit-rates in their video codecs and therefore to assess the stabilization factor in isolation the comparison needs to be between two videos filmed on the same Oly camera whereby one is stabilized with OIS and the other with IBIS (using the same lens). Do you know of such comparison?
I'm not sure why you say 'except for the fact'. What I said is that these numbers are specific to the current implementation - and that's precisely what you also wrote.
Yes, but if the movements are smaller because they are captured early on before they are being magnified then you need less movement from the sensor to compensate for the shake.
If it's close to the sensor then the benefit you described right here below is minimized:
But that's exactly my point - why not correcting the shake right where it starts and before it gets magnified?
But why not as close as you can to the shake source?
Yes, but that's a selling ticket for their stabilized bodies. For example, if someone owns several Oly/Sigma lenses, his/her attraction to non stabilized bodies is probably lower compared to stabilized ones. And anyway, if OIS is proven to be superior by at least 1.5-2 stops compared to the 2-axis stabilizer in the GX7 then Pany's stabilized lenses will still be attractive.
Last edited:
It's simply the fact that I don't believe we've ever seen IBIS alone for video. It's always been enhanced by digital trickery.
And video requires continuously active stabilization. I don't believe IBIS alone is suited to the task because of its greater energy requirements. It would probably drain the battery much quicker if the full IBIS were utilized for long videos.
I don't know exactly what type of implementation Oly uses for video, but there have been reports that the IBIS is much quieter for video, leading me to believe it's much less utilized here. OIS on the other hand is always on and is not a significant power drain.
This is my understanding of the reason that IBIS is not continuously running in stills mode either and is activated only when you press the shutter. If someone has another explanation, I'm all ears, but my explanation is the best fit I've found thus far.
And, from what I've seen, OIS is significantly more effective at longer focal lengths, both in MFT and in compacts, for video. If someone can show me any long zoom compact that uses IBIS and doesn't totally suck at those long focal lengths, again, I'm all ears. But, there is a reason why they've always used OIS and probably always will.
But they haven't changed over the few years difference between these lenses and these bodies, which is some indication that we're near a peak. Sure, there's room for improvement, but it's not going to be mind-blowing in all probability. Same as for CaNikon. They don't improve every year (or even every 5 years after a certain point is reached).
Not true. Your hand shake is as seen by the lens is the most important thing, not what's going on at the body. Also, obviously, that shaking is magnified the longer the focal length of the lens.
True. But, of the lenses I've seen with OIS built in, even the elements near the rear have had some magnification effect on the sensor, which serves to amplify the movement of element. This can't happen if it's the sensor itself that's moving.
When I played around with some of these OIS elements, the apparent movement on the sensor was significantly more than the amount of movement I was actually applying to the element.
And I forgot to mention that many of these OIS lenses have more than one floating element. Even on basic compacts I've seen an element for horizontal compensation and one for vertical. Obviously, you can't do this with a sensor.
Because it's not better. You want to correct it as close as possible to the front lens element. This is the point that's most relevant because this is where the light first enters the optical path.
Maybe. I would have no issue with Panny adopting more IBIS, especially in video. It all depends on their marketing department and their bottom line.
Mike Ronesia
Senior Member
Same could be said for PDAF, yet many of us do just fine without it. I don't know about you, but I don't have any sour grapes about M4/3's lack of true PADF.
Panny has added it to a body which tells me they are working on it and we will most likely see more of it. The heat generated by IBIS prohibits it in small cameras like the GH3/GH4 that shoot higher quality video then the Oly's, but tech changes and this will most likely be addressed as things get smaller and lighter.
Bottom line is yes it's useful in certain situations and more so if you can't remain still due to age or other debilitating factors, but only for a very limited set of conditions for most people. I'd like to have it, but not bad enough to give up the things I like about my Panny bodies that Oly doesn't do.
Ido Scharf
Veteran Member
IBIS works by a sensor that can move inside the camera. A large sensor in a small camera, can't move all that much. That's probably why Sony decided to ditch that when they launched the NEX line, even though their Alpha DSLR / SLT line already had that feature - there's much more room for the sensor to shift around in a DSLR body. And the Four Thirds sensor is small enough to shift in the Olympus cameras and the Panasonic GX7.
I personally think that IBIS doesn't make nearly as much sense as optical stabilization does, when using a TTL OVF camera - a DSLR, that is. Since you look at the world optically, you see it stabilized only when using optically stabilized lenses. You don't see the effect IBIS has through the viewfinder, like you see with the OM-D cameras. It's very reassuring to see a stable image in the viewfinder; Pentax DSLRs apparently do a great job at image stabilization according to the end results, but one has to trust that it's doing work, and probably "chimp" a lot (take the camera away form the eye, to look at the image on the monitor).
I personally think that IBIS doesn't make nearly as much sense as optical stabilization does, when using a TTL OVF camera - a DSLR, that is. Since you look at the world optically, you see it stabilized only when using optically stabilized lenses. You don't see the effect IBIS has through the viewfinder, like you see with the OM-D cameras. It's very reassuring to see a stable image in the viewfinder; Pentax DSLRs apparently do a great job at image stabilization according to the end results, but one has to trust that it's doing work, and probably "chimp" a lot (take the camera away form the eye, to look at the image on the monitor).
Paul Amyes
Senior Member
Ontario Gone
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,183
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,545
IBIS does help make up for what might otherwise be lesser noise performance, be it from slower lenses or other reasons. I think reasons for each brand will be different for why they don't offer it. Canikon strikes me as much more sports based, there is no doubt they have deep roots in action photography. For anything moving at a decent speed, IBIS/OIS won't help as much since you can only go so low on SS, in those times there is no replacement for that.
For others, like smaller mirrorless cams, it may come down to heat. Panasonic for one has seemingly always had a high end video line (GH series), and i think heat is an issue there with such high data rates moving around. Then when you work on developing OIS lenses for cameras like that, it makes having IBIS in other bodies less mandatory. It would be nice to have IBIS in all panasonic bodies, but at least there are some high end OIS lenses.
Then there are also technical reasons that may influence a brand. It's one more thing to go wrong in the camera, or cause complications (see Oly shutter shock). I have also read many more IBIS systems stop working than OIS, lenses tend to be very long lasting there. Cost could also be an issue. Lenses are, in theory, a one time buy. Most people take care of their lenses, so even if the lens is a bit expensive, it's an investment. Bodies are a fairly regular recurring fee, so keeping the body cost down as much as possible might look better to the consumer.
Just some guesses.
For others, like smaller mirrorless cams, it may come down to heat. Panasonic for one has seemingly always had a high end video line (GH series), and i think heat is an issue there with such high data rates moving around. Then when you work on developing OIS lenses for cameras like that, it makes having IBIS in other bodies less mandatory. It would be nice to have IBIS in all panasonic bodies, but at least there are some high end OIS lenses.
Then there are also technical reasons that may influence a brand. It's one more thing to go wrong in the camera, or cause complications (see Oly shutter shock). I have also read many more IBIS systems stop working than OIS, lenses tend to be very long lasting there. Cost could also be an issue. Lenses are, in theory, a one time buy. Most people take care of their lenses, so even if the lens is a bit expensive, it's an investment. Bodies are a fairly regular recurring fee, so keeping the body cost down as much as possible might look better to the consumer.
Just some guesses.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum