Future of Micro 4/3 - wishes for 2020

Started 2 months ago | Polls thread
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 64,274
Re: Future of Micro 4/3 - wishes for 2020

Tom Caldwell wrote:

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.

I wonder just how they do that. With IBIS, if the camera doesn't know the focal length, it doesn't know how far to move the sensor for an angular displacement. I can only think they have some kind of adaptive system which adjusts the parameters to minimise the characteristic 'shake' symptoms and thus deduces what is the FL of the lens fitted. Very clever, if that's what they've done.

Dual stabilisation can only work where the lens stabilisation simply aids and abets what the camera body IBIS is up to.

In some ways, I think it's the other way round (depending on what you mean by 'aids and abets'). The lens has to make the gross adjustments and the IBIS the fine tuning. I think the real question is which system leads. See below.

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.

I think you've had an insight there, as to why the two systems are incompatible. I think one has to lead, but it could be either. For most traditional lens stabilisation systems, it would have to be the lens that led, because the lens IS works entirely independent of the camera. All the camera can do (in some cases) is turn it off and on, but it can't control it to any significant degree. I would presume that's how Panasonic designed their IS, just because that's how it was done at the time (remember it was a difference of approach right back in Four Thirds times). To do dual IS with a system like that, you'd have to let the lens do what it does because there is no other option. The camera would need to track what the lens is doing and add any fine tuning that it considered necessary. To do that, it would need a pretty good idea of how each lens behaved, so as to know what fine tuning was necessary. On the other hand, if you designed a lens stabilisation system from the start to work with an IBIS, you'd let the camera lead. It would direct the lens to make the large adjustments as it calculated to be necessary and the lens to be capable of, then add a predetermined amount of fine tuning. That would require some additional camera/lens protocol, which we know is possible in mFT, outside the common agreed standards. We also know, by implication from some of the things that Panasonic said when launching the L mount alliance, that deciding what are common agreed standards has not always been straightforward.

-- hide signature --

...because you know, sometimes words have two meanings.

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