Future of Micro 4/3 - wishes for 2020

Started 3 months ago | Polls thread
MOD Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 39,739
Re: Future of Micro 4/3 - wishes for 2020

bobn2 wrote:

JHA2 wrote:

Make dual IS part of M43 system.
Any M43 camera with IBIS brings Dual IS with any M43 lens with OIS.
The power of M43 is compatibility.
Can you call M43 a system when members disclude essential functions from it.

I'm afraid that horse has bolted. I suspect also that it's technically infeasible without Olympus and/or Panasonic giving their trade secrets to each other. It depends what 'dual IS' actually does. Nikon's implementation simply turns of the IBIS for x and y tilt and translation and uses the lens IS alone for that, using the sensor just to do roll, which lens IS can't do. Nikon is straightforward about that. Neither Olympus or Panasonic is open about what their systems actually do, but if it is trying to have both lens and sensor IS for x/y tilt and translation operative at the same time then to make the servo loops work the camera will need very good information on the individual characteristics of the IS in every lens., given that the lens does what it does (since there is no way of making it do anything different) and the camera has to try and adapt on top of that, synchronising its own motion sensing with the lens'. What usually happens in these cases is that they build a database of existing lenses into the camera and extend the lens/camera protocol so that new lenses can be made with the required data in their chip and send it to the camera when mounted.

I read somewhere that the IS in the Olympus 300/4.0 was (probably among other things) to do with the fact that for such a long lens IBIS did not have enough amplitude on its own to cope well with more extreme telephoto. This seems a reasonable concession by Olympus for the benefit of its product line.

The wonderful Olympus 12-100/4.0 presumably needs IS because it is basically a fairly slow wide ranging zoom where extra IS help is appreciated.  But when it moves to Panasonic bodies it shuts down the IBIS on them.  Nevertheless the IS is so good that the lens works “a treat” even on the completely unstabilised GM series bodies.

So IBIS is great, I would not knock back its help - ever.  But I sometimes wonder whether the hype of IBIS became so powerful that many think that they could not survive without it.  Panasonic, and others, who opted initially for lens based stabilisation were able to maximise the benefit in the lenses that need it (alone).  The Olympus 12/100/4.0  used with Panasonic bodies only serves to emphasise the obvious - that a good tuned lens IS system all by itself is not bad at all.  Not having IBIS does not mean I have a panic fit.

What I found strange with my Olympus E-M1 was that with dumb MF lenses the camera is quite happy never to ask for or need focal length adjustment for proper IBIS support.  In fact I wonder just how many Olympus camera body users never change their IBIS focal length setting if they are in the habit of using and swapping dumb MF lenses with no communication with the camera body.

Dual stabilisation can only work where the lens stabilisation simply aids and abets what the camera body IBIS is up to.  As Panasonic had some pretty good stabilised lenses on offer before hand then maybe it might be the other way around.  I do not that the Panasonic 200/2.8, even with 2x teleconverter in use, presents a pretty stable platform also with a GM5 camera body.  Not missing IBIS there and Panasonic keeps making lenses with IS even since their “discovery” of IBIS.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

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