for all FF BS, fuji told the real story, 1/3 market by value, by unit much lower Locked

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
MEDISN Contributing Member • Posts: 749
Re: Well my A7 II 5 axis IBIS is nowhere close to my EM1 MKII????

bobn2 wrote:

MEDISN wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

richarddd wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

VideoPic wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

VideoPic wrote:

Because there are NO standard, anyone can slap an IBIS logo on a camera and claim its like an Olympus camera.........

In reality, no gets close to what Olympus and now Panasonic achieves......

Excuse me?


You say "there are NO standard", I give you a link to the standard.

Mark, I did not read that document in every detail, just had a very quick browse through it. So i may be wrong....

But... it looks to me, this is only about optical and electronic image stabilization systems. Not sensor shift systems like IBIS.

The test setup only moves the camera in pitch and jaw. Optical IS systems can not correct rotation, hence they do not test this. But this standard would make optical IS look better than it is, compared to IBIS..

Is there a separate CIPA standard for sensor shift stabilization? Or did I overlook something?

Olympus uses the CIPA numbers in its marketing. If the standard was understating the benefits of Olympus's IBIS, I'd think they'd find a way to say so rather than just touting its own results.

The real problem with this kind of standard is that products end up getting designed to get good scores according to the standard's tests, rather than doing a good job.

In academics we refer to it as "teaching to the test". Misses the point of education entirely but test scores are good!

Ironically for our friend, Olympus is a past master at this, and has worked out how to extract the last EV from CIPA ratings.

Agreed, but why not report 7-stops IBIS if you can? That's what goes in to marketing materials and reviews. Do sensor designers not try to squeeze every bit of DR, MP, read-out speed from sensors because reviews and tests regurgitate these metrics? In the end, the cameras have excellent IQ which is probably what's important to the targeted buyer.

I don't disagree. Olympus has very cute marketing and of course it's going to play everything just as well as it can. I have absolutely no argument with that. I do end up having arguments with people who insist on swallowing it whole.

I have my own issues with the CIPA test, I don't think it looks well related to the effectiveness of IS in real practice.

100% agree. It's as good as any standard I can think of but doesn't tell you much in your hands, at focal lengths you shoot. Much like CIPA battery life metric for MILC vs DSLR. Very much depends on how you're shooting.

There are also very few people who have rigorously enough tested their IS to say definitively that X is better than Y. There's a whole load of confirmation bias going on.

Perhaps. Someone like me who shoots both Sony and Olympus side-by-side for years notice differences in effective stabilization just like noticing difference in resolution and dynamic range when working in post. A9 for example markets *5-stops* IBIS, and I'm sure there is a test that confirms this. Does anyone get 5-stops IBIS with any regularity with it? I can't! But 2-3 stops is often "good enough", just as 20MP and 10EV PDR on mFT is often "good enough".

1:1 crops from Sony A9 and EM1mkII at ~ 85mm AOV. ISO's adjusted to maintain correct exposure. A9 looks quite good down to 1/10s (3-stops). EM1mkII down to 0.8s (6-stops).

Not the sort of test that impresses me much. Why? Because I think IS is mostly about hit rate.

Agree. This and all past comparisons I've made are composed from 10 shots at each shutter speed. What I consider successful is having at least 50% acceptable sharpness (5/10) for the set. What do I consider acceptable? In the example above, the A9 at 1/10s is acceptable, at 1/5 it is not.

So an example of one run were the Olympus is this good and the Sony is that good is hardly convincing.

Well "one run" in the example above is 60-80 photos per camera. If you can't see a difference in 10 shots at a given shutter speed, is it meaningful in everyday shooting? Perhaps I will repeat at 200 shots per shutter speed and measure the bokeh like CIPA

The reality is, you don't need convincing as far as I'm concerned - I don't shoot with your hands! I'm merely showing output in my hands, side-by-side at near-equivalent AOV and DOF. I always appreciate others experience. If someone is consistently achieving 5-stops with the A9, I would love to learn how.

At least CIPA does try to look at the statistics of stabilisation, rather than a single run.

And bokeh measuring at multiples of 35mm with different vibrators based on weight. What that translates to in my photography is anyone's guess.

The other thing is that the effectiveness of different stabilisation systems depends on the exposure time. I'm much more interested in something that can get my long lens down from 1/1000 to 1/30 than I am something that can take 1/80 down to 1 second. I don't shoot that many things where the subject is still for 1 second.

Many "subjects" don't move. Even when they do move, I use the effect of long exposures to convey movement in a scene. Historically I did this with tripods and ND filters. mFT opens up several possibilities to where I don't always have to carry tripods and filters anymore. Stabilization at any shutter speed is beneficial in my view. There's no reason to limit to long lenses.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow