Pnansonic Leica 200mm 2.8 with EM1-2 - OIS vis IBIS Question

Following on from THIS THREAD I'm now the proud but unscheduled owner of the venerable Panasonic Leica 200mm 2.8 prime plus 1.4 teleconverter.

For the unbelievable price of £999 sterling. Allegedly ex-demo stock but looks likes it's never been out of the box?!

Anyway.....

Having a play with it on my EM1-2 just now....

Knowing that Sync-IS won't work? I switched OIS to "off" on the lens assuming the camera IBIS would be the way to go.

Result? Everything looks fairly stable in the EVF, the conclusion is IBIS is doing a reasonable job....

I then switched the OIS on the lens to "on" (thus deactivating IBIS) and OMG the image in the EVF went from fairly stable to rock solid.

On this very unscientific basis it would appear that using OIS rather than IBIS is the way to go with this lens?

So, my question is:

Does anybody using this lens or a similarly OIS equipped long zoom from Panasonic on Olympus bodies have any input on my observation on the way to go in the real world shooting environment? OIS or IBIS?

Basically, the longer the focal length, the more impact slight movements make on the image projected on the sensor.

The more the image projected on the sensor moves, the more the sensor has to move to stabilize it.

The OIS is further from the sensor plane and as such it doesn't need to move as much as the sensor to compensate for the same shake.

So, use OIS on the 200mm f2.8. The Oly 300mm f4 has OIS for the same reason.

AFAIK OIS is only 3-axis

StefanSC said:

Basically, the longer the focal length, the more impact slight movements make on the image projected on the sensor.

The more the image projected on the sensor moves, the more the sensor has to move to stabilize it.

The OIS is further from the sensor plane and as such it doesn't need to move as much as the sensor to compensate for the same shake.

So, use OIS on the 200mm f2.8. The Oly 300mm f4 has OIS for the same reason.

Click to expand...

Sorry, your physics is a little off here. The displacement needed remains essentially constant with FL, but the velocity increases. There's no evidence that IBIS is less capable of handling the higher velocities needed. Even if displacement were the issue, OIS could run out of gimbal or image circle just as well as IBIS can run out of sensor travel. IBIS also controls rotation, which OIS does not address.

Note that Oly added OIS to the 300 Pro because the combination improves performance, not because OIS alone outperforms IBIS.

The real advantage of OIS is the full-time finder stabilization. That might give you better framing, but might not translate to sharper images.

There's really no substitute for personal testing. Shoot a test chart with OIS on and off at a variety of shutter speeds and see what you get. The shot-to-shot variance is high, so you need a lot of samples, which is tedious. Measuring MTF with a tool like MTFmapper helps reduce the subjectivity, but doing it by eye works.

If I had to bet, I'd bet on IBIS alone over OIS alone, but I have no firsthand experience with this lens. Some prefer OIS on the 100-400, so it's certainly possible that it's better.

TomFid said:

StefanSC said:

Basically, the longer the focal length, the more impact slight movements make on the image projected on the sensor.

The more the image projected on the sensor moves, the more the sensor has to move to stabilize it.

The OIS is further from the sensor plane and as such it doesn't need to move as much as the sensor to compensate for the same shake.

So, use OIS on the 200mm f2.8. The Oly 300mm f4 has OIS for the same reason.

Click to expand...

Sorry, your physics is a little off here. The displacement needed remains essentially constant with FL, but the velocity increases. There's no evidence that IBIS is less capable of handling the higher velocities needed. Even if displacement were the issue, OIS could run out of gimbal or image circle just as well as IBIS can run out of sensor travel. IBIS also controls rotation, which OIS does not address.

Note that Oly added OIS to the 300 Pro because the combination improves performance, not because OIS alone outperforms IBIS.

The real advantage of OIS is the full-time finder stabilization. That might give you better framing, but might not translate to sharper images.

There's really no substitute for personal testing. Shoot a test chart with OIS on and off at a variety of shutter speeds and see what you get. The shot-to-shot variance is high, so you need a lot of samples, which is tedious. Measuring MTF with a tool like MTFmapper helps reduce the subjectivity, but doing it by eye works.

If I had to bet, I'd bet on IBIS alone over OIS alone, but I have no firsthand experience with this lens. Some prefer OIS on the 100-400, so it's certainly possible that it's better.

Click to expand...

This makes sense, hence the question. I did a forum search and nothing conclusive came up. Sometimes personal experimentation is the only way. Other times somebody has the answer, thus saving a lot of time. Interesting to see if any consensus materialises. I’d not considered that stable EVF view doesn’t necessarily equate to how stable an image is presented to the sensor. I’m gonna have to get my head around that. I’m no techie, far from it, but I’d laboured under the impression that the EVF was presenting exactly what the sensor was seeing?

StefanSC said:

Basically, the longer the focal length, the more impact slight movements make on the image projected on the sensor.

The more the image projected on the sensor moves, the more the sensor has to move to stabilize it.

The OIS is further from the sensor plane and as such it doesn't need to move as much as the sensor to compensate for the same shake.

So, use OIS on the 200mm f2.8. The Oly 300mm f4 has OIS for the same reason.

Click to expand...

This makes sense, I’ll have to experiment but my tiny brain concludes that whatever looks most stable in the EVF mirrors what the sensor is getting. If that’s the case OIS wins in this case.

BurnImage said:

TomFid said:

StefanSC said:

Basically, the longer the focal length, the more impact slight movements make on the image projected on the sensor.

The more the image projected on the sensor moves, the more the sensor has to move to stabilize it.

The OIS is further from the sensor plane and as such it doesn't need to move as much as the sensor to compensate for the same shake.

So, use OIS on the 200mm f2.8. The Oly 300mm f4 has OIS for the same reason.

Click to expand...

Sorry, your physics is a little off here. The displacement needed remains essentially constant with FL, but the velocity increases. There's no evidence that IBIS is less capable of handling the higher velocities needed. Even if displacement were the issue, OIS could run out of gimbal or image circle just as well as IBIS can run out of sensor travel. IBIS also controls rotation, which OIS does not address.

Note that Oly added OIS to the 300 Pro because the combination improves performance, not because OIS alone outperforms IBIS.

The real advantage of OIS is the full-time finder stabilization. That might give you better framing, but might not translate to sharper images.

There's really no substitute for personal testing. Shoot a test chart with OIS on and off at a variety of shutter speeds and see what you get. The shot-to-shot variance is high, so you need a lot of samples, which is tedious. Measuring MTF with a tool like MTFmapper helps reduce the subjectivity, but doing it by eye works.

If I had to bet, I'd bet on IBIS alone over OIS alone, but I have no firsthand experience with this lens. Some prefer OIS on the 100-400, so it's certainly possible that it's better.

Click to expand...

This makes sense, hence the question. I did a forum search and nothing conclusive came up. Sometimes personal experimentation is the only way. Other times somebody has the answer, thus saving a lot of time. Interesting to see if any consensus materialises. I’d not considered that stable EVF view doesn’t necessarily equate to how stable an image is presented to the sensor. I’m gonna have to get my head around that. I’m no techie, far from it, but I’d laboured under the impression that the EVF was presenting exactly what the sensor was seeing?

Click to expand...

The EVF isn't necessarily giving you the same resolution and exposure time as the actual shot, so there are opportunities for differences. I think behavior with IBIS also depends on the halfway release setting (see https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4285667 ).

Lenstip tested OIS-only against Dual IS ( https://www.lenstip.com/521.3-Lens_...S._Build_quality_and_image_stabilization.html ) and found that OIS alone yielded about 4 stops improvement (vs. 5.5 for dual). Too bad they didn't test IBIS-only as well.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of disinformation out there from people who've tested without understanding the settings rules for the two systems (helpfully compiled here by Guy Parsons: http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~parsog/olyepl1/30-oly-stabilisation.html )

TomFid said:

BurnImage said:

TomFid said:

StefanSC said:

Basically, the longer the focal length, the more impact slight movements make on the image projected on the sensor.

The more the image projected on the sensor moves, the more the sensor has to move to stabilize it.

The OIS is further from the sensor plane and as such it doesn't need to move as much as the sensor to compensate for the same shake.

So, use OIS on the 200mm f2.8. The Oly 300mm f4 has OIS for the same reason.

Click to expand...

Sorry, your physics is a little off here. The displacement needed remains essentially constant with FL, but the velocity increases. There's no evidence that IBIS is less capable of handling the higher velocities needed. Even if displacement were the issue, OIS could run out of gimbal or image circle just as well as IBIS can run out of sensor travel. IBIS also controls rotation, which OIS does not address.

Note that Oly added OIS to the 300 Pro because the combination improves performance, not because OIS alone outperforms IBIS.

The real advantage of OIS is the full-time finder stabilization. That might give you better framing, but might not translate to sharper images.

There's really no substitute for personal testing. Shoot a test chart with OIS on and off at a variety of shutter speeds and see what you get. The shot-to-shot variance is high, so you need a lot of samples, which is tedious. Measuring MTF with a tool like MTFmapper helps reduce the subjectivity, but doing it by eye works.

If I had to bet, I'd bet on IBIS alone over OIS alone, but I have no firsthand experience with this lens. Some prefer OIS on the 100-400, so it's certainly possible that it's better.

Click to expand...

This makes sense, hence the question. I did a forum search and nothing conclusive came up. Sometimes personal experimentation is the only way. Other times somebody has the answer, thus saving a lot of time. Interesting to see if any consensus materialises. I’d not considered that stable EVF view doesn’t necessarily equate to how stable an image is presented to the sensor. I’m gonna have to get my head around that. I’m no techie, far from it, but I’d laboured under the impression that the EVF was presenting exactly what the sensor was seeing?

Click to expand...

The EVF isn't necessarily giving you the same resolution and exposure time as the actual shot, so there are opportunities for differences. I think behavior with IBIS also depends on the halfway release setting (see https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4285667 ).

Lenstip tested OIS-only against Dual IS ( https://www.lenstip.com/521.3-Lens_...S._Build_quality_and_image_stabilization.html ) and found that OIS alone yielded about 4 stops improvement (vs. 5.5 for dual). Too bad they didn't test IBIS-only as well.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of disinformation out there from people who've tested without understanding the settings rules for the two systems (helpfully compiled here by Guy Parsons: http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~parsog/olyepl1/30-oly-stabilisation.html )

Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the time and effort to dig out those links, it’s appreciated and helpful.

The lenstip article kinda confirms the lens OIS is great without sync-is as an EM5-2 was used for the evaluation.

The Guy Parsons link simply confirms that sync-IS is brand specific.

I also have better stabilisation with OIS (on EM1x)

With my first generation Panasonic 100-300 the OIS (Mega OIS) to my eye beats IBIS at the long end.

Member said:

Thanks for taking the time and effort to dig out those links, it’s appreciated and helpful.

Click to expand...

You're most welcome.

Member said:

The lenstip article kinda confirms the lens OIS is great without sync-is as an EM5-2 was used for the evaluation.

Click to expand...

It does. Lenstip did test the IBIS alone somewhere, and rated it around 3.5 stops, which would suggest a possible advantage to OIS, but since the EM1ii is a little better than the EM5ii and they didn't use the same lens, it's hard to draw conclusions.

IBIS is good but was “sold” better.

Why did so many companies make lenses with OIS in the first place? Panasonic and Canon are a couple. Perhaps they were not smart enough to invent IBIS? As far as I know it was Minolta that first introduced IBIS and not Olympus.

From what I have read the main advantage of IBIS is that “one size fits all” and the various strengths of IBIS must be tailored to the focal length of the lens being used and then start to struggle with amplitude and zoom lenses that don’t send electronic signals to vary their strength throughout the zoom range.

OIS in lens is made to suit the lens. IBIS “has a crack at it” - but I hasten to say that it is very good and that Olympus IBIS is one of the best evolved. But for lenses with a very wide range or extreme length IBIS need a helper to get the amplitude necessary. Therefore a very long Olympus lens needs IBIS and OIS and I doubt that it was any accident that the most excellent 12-100/4.0 also has OIS. In fact I have that lens and use it on Panasonic bodies where it automatically locks out Panasonic IBIS and the lens still remains incredibly stable. Is Panasonic IBIS no good? Rubbish - it simply proves that an OIS well tailored to the lens it inhabits is excellent.

Would I be happy without any IBIS? Well I frequently have to rely on “just OIS” and I have no issues. But I am not going to not use any help that IBIS might offer in my camera bodies.

The reality is that IBIS is good and very worthwhile but doing without IBIS is not the end of the world. IBIS is a generic stabilisation product and should be understood as such - OIS is made specifically for each individual lens and should be more than good enough for most needs.

Tom Caldwell said:

IBIS is good but was “sold” better.

Click to expand...

One might say the same about OIS.

Tom Caldwell said:

Why did so many companies make lenses with OIS in the first place? Panasonic and Canon are a couple. Perhaps they were not smart enough to invent IBIS? As far as I know it was Minolta that first introduced IBIS and not Olympus.

Click to expand...

There was OIS long before there were any consumer digital cameras. Remember film? OIS was the only option.

Tom Caldwell said:

From what I have read the main advantage of IBIS is that “one size fits all” and the various strengths of IBIS must be tailored to the focal length of the lens being used and then start to struggle with amplitude and zoom lenses that don’t send electronic signals to vary their strength throughout the zoom range.

Click to expand...

"Struggling with the amplitude" is a bogus concept. The displacement needed to manage a given number of stops of improvement is basically constant with focal length, because while the angular velocity goes up with FL, the baseline exposure duration goes down with 1/FL.

Tom Caldwell said:

The reality is that IBIS is good and very worthwhile but doing without IBIS is not the end of the world. IBIS is a generic stabilisation product and should be understood as such - OIS is made specifically for each individual lens and should be more than good enough for most needs.

Click to expand...

Again, "generic" vs. custom seems like another idea invented by OIS fans, lacking real-world evidence. Are the laws of geometry and physics special at certain focal lengths? I doubt it.

I think it's quite reasonable to wonder which is better for a given lens-body combination, and it's great to have both. But it's not a question of religion or wishful physics. It's empirical, and pretty easy to test.

BurnImage said:

Following on from THIS THREAD I'm now the proud but unscheduled owner of the venerable Panasonic Leica 200mm 2.8 prime plus 1.4 teleconverter.

For the unbelievable price of £999 sterling. Allegedly ex-demo stock but looks likes it's never been out of the box?!

Anyway.....

Having a play with it on my EM1-2 just now....

Knowing that Sync-IS won't work? I switched OIS to "off" on the lens assuming the camera IBIS would be the way to go.

Result? Everything looks fairly stable in the EVF, the conclusion is IBIS is doing a reasonable job....

I then switched the OIS on the lens to "on" (thus deactivating IBIS) and OMG the image in the EVF went from fairly stable to rock solid.

On this very unscientific basis it would appear that using OIS rather than IBIS is the way to go with this lens?

So, my question is:

Does anybody using this lens or a similarly OIS equipped long zoom from Panasonic on Olympus bodies have any input on my observation on the way to go in the real world shooting environment? OIS or IBIS?

Click to expand...

My experience with that combination, as well the the PL200 + E-M1X, is that the OIS in the lens is around 2 stops better than the IBIS.

OIS for 200mm or longer, in my experience, works better than IBIS... even at 100mm it is a toss up with IBIS. SYNC IS is slightly better with longer lenses than OIS alone. The Oly Pro 40-150mm would be a nice improvement with SYNC IS one day. I would not be concerned with OIS "only" with the 200 2.8 on an Oly body. I found OIS on the PL 100-400 to be better than EM1.2 IBIS by nearly a stop at 400mm. The EM1X narrowed this down to almost no difference. Shoot handheld test shots with either stabilisation at 1/8 to 1/60 of a stationary test subject to see differences.

There was a time when Panasonic had their older generation OIS and Oly brought out 5 axis IBIS that IBIS was a couple stops ahead, but modern OIS is very competitive now. Oly knows this, which is why SYNC IS was brought out on the 300 Pro.

Hi everybody, thanks for all your input. It leaves no doubt that OIS is the way to go in this instance and I’m very grateful to all that contributed.