How stable will Panasonic GH4 and the Pany/Leica 100 to 400 be?

6 X 17 Feind wrote:

Will the GH4 body (which is NOT stabilized) drive the image stabilization in the 100 to 400?

If so what will be minimum hand-holding shutter speeds to avoid blur (with lower ISOs, say 800ish) under normal daylight conditions?

The OIS in the 100-400mm is very, very, good.  Even without the dual IS, you can get quite good results at surprisingly low shutter speeds.

HOWEVER: There is a caveat here:  Technique matters, and you really must use the e-shutter as you drop your speeds especially.  Someone with iffy holding technique is going to get blur at pretty high shutter speeds.  Someone with very steady technique can go absurdly low with it (and I do mean really, really, low).

Only way to tell how well it will work for you is to give it a try.  Maybe rent a copy for a few days?

-J

You might have seen several posts here by people disappointed with the images they get from this lens - for some, I think it might be their first extreme telephoto. Most of their problems are due to lack of experience and technique.

OIS works well, but this is an extremely long lens. If you are worried about how slow you can go, you are probably using it wrong.

This lens needs high shutter speeds, and prefers electronic shutter. Bright sunlight helps, too. And you will definitely get better results on a monopod, or better still, a tripod.

I'd consider the image below to be borderline acceptable, and only then because of the subject. EXIF should be intact. Taken with a monopod.

Better results in my post here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4118158

Where bright light, high shutter speeds and a monopod give far better results.

6 X 17 Feind wrote:

My normal camera is a Nikon D-800 and my long lens is an older 300 f/2.8 without any kind of IS. I am aware of good long lens technique and I am an avid Monopod user. A recent outing to photograph critters showed me quite conclusively 300 ain't near enough lens and even a 1.4 teleconverter wasn't enough. The expense of going to a longer lens in this vein is extreme and my thought process was that a GH4 (fairly affordable these days) and the 100 to 400 would give way more versatility in this area. I am not a sensor size nut and M4/3 will produce very fine photographs of critters in general. Besides if I ever do get around to printing anything most animals photos aren't printed huge anyway.

My reason for asking is any IS will be a step up and I am curious how much this new technology will help.

I think OIS may help a bit, but not so much at this focal length - but don't underestimate its value for framing. And OIS won't help, and may even exacerbate, shutter shock.

Unless you are considering the GH4 for specific reasons, I'd suggest the similarly priced G85, which really does improve things, with IBIS and DualIS available.

I have the G7, which is comparable to the GH4 in many respects, and on this the 100-400 is my favourite lens (partly because of where I live and the subjects I photograph).

6 X 17 Feind wrote:

My normal camera is a Nikon D-800 and my long lens is an older 300 f/2.8 without any kind of IS. I am aware of good long lens technique and I am an avid Monopod user. A recent outing to photograph critters showed me quite conclusively 300 ain't near enough lens and even a 1.4 teleconverter wasn't enough. The expense of going to a longer lens in this vein is extreme and my thought process was that a GH4 (fairly affordable these days) and the 100 to 400 would give way more versatility in this area. I am not a sensor size nut and M4/3 will produce very fine photographs of critters in general. Besides if I ever do get around to printing anything most animals photos aren't printed huge anyway.

One question: Why the GH4 and not the G85?  The G85 has a lot of advances over the GH4, and is about the same price now.  Or, if you want the more advanced sensor, the GX8 (what I use) is a fabulous combo with the 100-400mm, and price is going to be approximately in the same ballpark.

My reason for asking is any IS will be a step up and I am curious how much this new technology will help.

A LOT.  The OIS in this lens is really pretty darn remarkable.  You should very easily be able to go to speeds 1/focal length, and I routinely end up at 1/ half the focal length.  So, I can get sharp shots, with just the right conditions and body bracing, at 1/200 for 400mm.  (See shot below).  Of course, the more you push it, the more likely you are to end up with some blurry discards, but if you work on your technique, you can do wonders with the IS in this lens.

(These were both hand held).

-J

6 X 17 Feind wrote:

Marie Meyer wrote:

I love both those photos.

I agree! and herein is my argument for going to a Long Lensed M4/3 camera and the 100 to 400. Both those apertures weren't even close to 2.8 and the backgrounds look GORGEOUS!

Thank you!  I am quite happy with the appearance of the OOF areas in the 100-400mm.  It really renders so nicely....dare I even say it has nice b word (bokeh)

-J