How many of GX9's "5-axis IBIS" are actually IB?

schlafmuetze wrote:

atomic77 wrote:

Thanks for your answer, it makes me more confident to choose GX9. But the question was more theoretical - How does it compare to, for example, Olympus, when using not stabilized lens. Because there are some differences in both reviews and technical specifications.

Differences in reviews are because the evaluation of stabilization systems is very subjective. And the person holding the camera plays a very important role in this process. As well as the lens used for the test.

Absolutely.

But back to the person, even the personal preferences, both objective like how camera ergonomics and grip fits to your hands and how much coffee is in your blood system, and subjective as liking or disliking a specific camera model and brand) can heavily influence the test outcome.

IMHO, measuring stabilization in "stops" is bad, and is just slightly better than measuring it in "axis".

There is usually a CIBA rating in stops. It can be useful for comparison purposes for the average person corresponding to whatever CIBA uses to give that rating. It's just like CIBA battery life rating is useful for cross comparisons (but might not be a good indication of how many shots each person may expect to get per charge).

As far as stops go, my GX80, which probably has the same IBIS as the GX9, can do nearly 4 stops with a non-IS lens and shoot at 1/8s with non-trivial success rates (repeat three times for a very good chance of getting at least one sharp). But this is with the 45/1.8. With wider lenses the number of stops reduce.

Dual IS does go to 4 stops comfortably, but that's at longer telephoto FL's, say 100mm. My widest dual IS capable FL is 12mm. 4 stops from 12mm is 1/1.5s - no way in my experience.