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

Started 6 months ago | Discussions
This thread is locked.
cba_melbourne Senior Member • Posts: 1,021
Re: Well my A7 II 5 axis IBIS is nowhere close to my EM1 MKII????

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?

http://www.cipa.jp/image-stabilization/index_e.html

Huh......????

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?

 cba_melbourne's gear list:cba_melbourne's gear list
Olympus PEN-F Olympus E-M5 II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Pro +11 more
richarddd
richarddd Veteran Member • Posts: 3,300
Re: Bob my dear, I thought we had a gentlemen's agreement dear......

bobn2 wrote:

VideoPic wrote:

bobn2 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?

http://www.cipa.jp/image-stabilization/index_e.html

Huh......????

Let me try to explain.

You said there is no standard.

Mark provided a link to a standard.

I think that means that you were wrong and he was right.

See our fundamental goals visiting this forum differ..... I am pro MFT and like to encourage MFT owners to enjoy, believe in, trust their equipment, hobby, share, plus plus..... You engage in endless tech bla bla to discredit the format and promote FF systems....

Yes I know you have a MFT camera parked somewhere in the garage.......

So the CIPA standard ensures Nikon IBIS or Sony IBIS equals that of the EM1 II or the EM1X........have not seen the tests, data, proof? Oh yes but when I see a IBIS logo I should assume its the same because Bob said so......

Huh.....????

I believe he's saying that the standard is inconsistent with his fundamental goal of encouraging MFT owners, therefore it must be challenged.

 richarddd's gear list:richarddd's gear list
Sony RX100 III Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 +4 more
richarddd
richarddd Veteran Member • Posts: 3,300
Re: Well my A7 II 5 axis IBIS is nowhere close to my EM1 MKII????

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?

http://www.cipa.jp/image-stabilization/index_e.html

Huh......????

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.

 richarddd's gear list:richarddd's gear list
Sony RX100 III Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 +4 more
VideoPic
VideoPic Senior Member • Posts: 1,381
Re: Bob my dear, I thought we had a gentlemen's agreement dear......

richarddd wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

VideoPic wrote:

bobn2 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?

http://www.cipa.jp/image-stabilization/index_e.html

Huh......????

Let me try to explain.

You said there is no standard.

Mark provided a link to a standard.

I think that means that you were wrong and he was right.

See our fundamental goals visiting this forum differ..... I am pro MFT and like to encourage MFT owners to enjoy, believe in, trust their equipment, hobby, share, plus plus..... You engage in endless tech bla bla to discredit the format and promote FF systems....

Yes I know you have a MFT camera parked somewhere in the garage.......

So the CIPA standard ensures Nikon IBIS or Sony IBIS equals that of the EM1 II or the EM1X........have not seen the tests, data, proof? Oh yes but when I see a IBIS logo I should assume its the same because Bob said so......

Huh.....????

I believe he's saying that the standard is inconsistent with his fundamental goal of encouraging MFT owners, therefore it must be challenged.

Or it's only for stabilization with reference to a lens and NOT in camera 5 axis (IBIS) stabilization?

-- hide signature --

See my Blog for short articles on the Olympus and Panasonic cameras.
https://myolympusomd.blogspot.com/
Tech developments to wipe sensor size arguments, 3yr death countdown started Jan 2019

 VideoPic's gear list:VideoPic's gear list
Olympus PEN-F Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 25mm F1.8 Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm F1.8 +4 more
NCV
NCV Veteran Member • Posts: 9,252
Nothing at all NT
 NCV's gear list:NCV's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Nikon D700 Nikon D810
golfhov Forum Pro • Posts: 10,517
perspective

i think we can conclude that it is easiest to view the world as you see it instead of how it is.

 golfhov's gear list:golfhov's gear list
Panasonic LX10 Sony a7R II Sony a7 III Sony FE 28mm F2 Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD +11 more
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 62,054
Re: Well my A7 II 5 axis IBIS is nowhere close to my EM1 MKII????

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?

http://www.cipa.jp/image-stabilization/index_e.html

Huh......????

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

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.

-- hide signature --

Ride easy, William.
Bob

richarddd
richarddd Veteran Member • Posts: 3,300
Re: Bob my dear, I thought we had a gentlemen's agreement dear......

VideoPic wrote:

richarddd wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

VideoPic wrote:

bobn2 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?

http://www.cipa.jp/image-stabilization/index_e.html

Huh......????

Let me try to explain.

You said there is no standard.

Mark provided a link to a standard.

I think that means that you were wrong and he was right.

See our fundamental goals visiting this forum differ..... I am pro MFT and like to encourage MFT owners to enjoy, believe in, trust their equipment, hobby, share, plus plus..... You engage in endless tech bla bla to discredit the format and promote FF systems....

Yes I know you have a MFT camera parked somewhere in the garage.......

So the CIPA standard ensures Nikon IBIS or Sony IBIS equals that of the EM1 II or the EM1X........have not seen the tests, data, proof? Oh yes but when I see a IBIS logo I should assume its the same because Bob said so......

Huh.....????

I believe he's saying that the standard is inconsistent with his fundamental goal of encouraging MFT owners, therefore it must be challenged.

Or it's only for stabilization with reference to a lens and NOT in camera 5 axis (IBIS) stabilization?

Olympus's marketing clearly uses the standard beyond lens only.

 richarddd's gear list:richarddd's gear list
Sony RX100 III Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 +4 more
richarddd
richarddd Veteran Member • Posts: 3,300
Re: Well my A7 II 5 axis IBIS is nowhere close to my EM1 MKII????

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?

http://www.cipa.jp/image-stabilization/index_e.html

Huh......????

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

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.

I believe that DPR has written that based on their testing of IS a higher CIPA score generally means better stabilization, even though the number of stops DPR gets in its tests are not the same as the CIPA score.

A problem is that different people have different results when testing IS. Even if the vast majority of people get a certain number of stops of IS, any individual might get a very different number.  However, it is useful to have a published standard.  Do you know of anything better for rating IS?

 richarddd's gear list:richarddd's gear list
Sony RX100 III Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 +4 more
Mark Ransom
Mark Ransom Veteran Member • Posts: 5,753
Re: Yes WV also followed the Diesel standard..... ;-)

VideoPic wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

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

It's maybe a great idea to post the independent & validated tests....the proof...

See some of us went and try different cameras. I can tell you there are NO comparison between my EM1 II, the G9 and the Sony A7 II IBIS...... wonder why. Oh but do not worry there is a CIPA standard....... get real......

Sure, and why don't you ask for a Unicorn too while you're at it.

It is one thing to argue that the standard is deficient, quite another to claim there's no standard at all.

I admit the possibility that the standard isn't robust or is being cheated on, but the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.

 Mark Ransom's gear list:Mark Ransom's gear list
Pentax K-7 Pentax K-01 Olympus E-M5 II Pentax smc DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL WR Pentax smc D-FA 100mm F2.8 macro +6 more
Yandrosxx Regular Member • Posts: 129
Re: Yes WV also followed the Diesel standard..... ;-)

Mark Ransom wrote:

VideoPic wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

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

It's maybe a great idea to post the independent & validated tests....the proof...

See some of us went and try different cameras. I can tell you there are NO comparison between my EM1 II, the G9 and the Sony A7 II IBIS...... wonder why. Oh but do not worry there is a CIPA standard....... get real......

Sure, and why don't you ask for a Unicorn too while you're at it.

It is one thing to argue that the standard is deficient, quite another to claim there's no standard at all.

I admit the possibility that the standard isn't robust or is being cheated on, but the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.

Except the accusers in this instance are offering proof.  They are expressly there and others real world experience with the claim IBIS performance is not as represented by the manufacturers.  Testimony of actual experience is evidence.  And while the CIPA Standard is simply a framework for measuring, it is as you've noted subject to the honesty of the manufacturer who implements and reports the results when applied.

golfhov Forum Pro • Posts: 10,517
Anecdotes VS testing

Anecdotes aren't the same as a controlled test.

Granted there can be issues with a controlled test too BUT it has far less issues than using anecdotes from the faithful

 golfhov's gear list:golfhov's gear list
Panasonic LX10 Sony a7R II Sony a7 III Sony FE 28mm F2 Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD +11 more
Maikeru C Junior Member • Posts: 48
Re: What will appeal to the Chinese?

Mark Ransom wrote:

Henry Richardson wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

So do you think a camera designed to appeal to the Chinese will also appeal to the rest of us?

What do you believe is a camera and system that will appeal particularly to the Chinese, but maybe not "to the rest of us"? I suspect all the Chinese people do not think and want exactly the same things. Just like all other people all around the world.

It would be naive to assume that every market world-wide is identical. To give just one example, I assume that the average disposable income in China is less than the average for participants of this forum. So perhaps a device targeted to that market would sacrifice functionality for a lower price. But maybe that's a prejudice I have that is not justified, so my question is legitimate - how would a product designed to appeal to Chinese tastes fail to attract a more global market? I've already seen examples of products for the Japanese market that fail to catch on internationally.

I am going to assume you have not been to China. The level of urban development occurring is staggering.  You can see more cranes and trucks at one site than have ever seen elsewhere in the world.

Remember how many luxury cars and goods are sold there.  Take a trip to Macau where Chinese gamblers like to go and take a good look at the stores selling many items costing more than $100,000 US.  Or visit Rolex dealers in Hong Kong and Macau and ask  who their biggest clients are.

Sure, average income is lower, but there is a certain segment of the Chinese population with almost unlimited money.  That's who counts to the manufacturers of luxury and expensive goods.

 Maikeru C's gear list:Maikeru C's gear list
Fujifilm X70 Olympus E-M5 II Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Canon 6D Mark II Canon EOS 70D +17 more
VideoPic
VideoPic Senior Member • Posts: 1,381
Such a useless discussion.....

Yandrosxx wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

VideoPic wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

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

It's maybe a great idea to post the independent & validated tests....the proof...

See some of us went and try different cameras. I can tell you there are NO comparison between my EM1 II, the G9 and the Sony A7 II IBIS...... wonder why. Oh but do not worry there is a CIPA standard....... get real......

Sure, and why don't you ask for a Unicorn too while you're at it.

It is one thing to argue that the standard is deficient, quite another to claim there's no standard at all.

I admit the possibility that the standard isn't robust or is being cheated on, but the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.

Except the accusers in this instance are offering proof. They are expressly there and others real world experience with the claim IBIS performance is not as represented by the manufacturers. Testimony of actual experience is evidence. And while the CIPA Standard is simply a framework for measuring, it is as you've noted subject to the honesty of the manufacturer who implements and reports the results when applied.

Proofs again and again the complete discussion brings absolute NO value..... Without naming names.....some are quick to criticize any claims or expressing satisfaction with MFT IBIS....... NO NO there is a standard....look CIPA and then when challenged its up to the MFT poster to proof......Huh"

Why did you engage in the first place in this fruitless discussion......?

This is the MFT forum.....if a MFT owner expresses his or hers satisfaction or even believe his is bigger or better while in this space........RESPECT that, it brings NO value to then engage in arguments to either proof how smart you are or how irrelevant the argument is.......grow up!!!

-- hide signature --

See my Blog for short articles on the Olympus and Panasonic cameras.
https://myolympusomd.blogspot.com/
Tech developments to wipe sensor size arguments, 3yr death countdown started Jan 2019

 VideoPic's gear list:VideoPic's gear list
Olympus PEN-F Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 25mm F1.8 Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm F1.8 +4 more
MEDISN
MEDISN Contributing Member • Posts: 868
Re: Well my A7 II 5 axis IBIS is nowhere close to my EM1 MKII????

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?

http://www.cipa.jp/image-stabilization/index_e.html

Huh......????

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 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).

Mark Ransom
Mark Ransom Veteran Member • Posts: 5,753
Re: Such a useless discussion.....

VideoPic wrote:

Why did you engage in the first place in this fruitless discussion......?

https://xkcd.com/386/

 Mark Ransom's gear list:Mark Ransom's gear list
Pentax K-7 Pentax K-01 Olympus E-M5 II Pentax smc DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL WR Pentax smc D-FA 100mm F2.8 macro +6 more
Mark Ransom
Mark Ransom Veteran Member • Posts: 5,753
Re: What will appeal to the Chinese?

Maikeru C wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

It would be naive to assume that every market world-wide is identical. To give just one example, I assume that the average disposable income in China is less than the average for participants of this forum. So perhaps a device targeted to that market would sacrifice functionality for a lower price. But maybe that's a prejudice I have that is not justified, so my question is legitimate - how would a product designed to appeal to Chinese tastes fail to attract a more global market? I've already seen examples of products for the Japanese market that fail to catch on internationally.

I am going to assume you have not been to China. The level of urban development occurring is staggering. You can see more cranes and trucks at one site than have ever seen elsewhere in the world.

Remember how many luxury cars and goods are sold there. Take a trip to Macau where Chinese gamblers like to go and take a good look at the stores selling many items costing more than $100,000 US. Or visit Rolex dealers in Hong Kong and Macau and ask who their biggest clients are.

Sure, average income is lower, but there is a certain segment of the Chinese population with almost unlimited money. That's who counts to the manufacturers of luxury and expensive goods.

You are correct, I have not been there. I knew when I made the comment that my ignorance would be showing. I would have been better off citing cultural differences, things that are considered important vs. those that can be ignored, except that I didn't have any examples.

 Mark Ransom's gear list:Mark Ransom's gear list
Pentax K-7 Pentax K-01 Olympus E-M5 II Pentax smc DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL WR Pentax smc D-FA 100mm F2.8 macro +6 more
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 62,054
Re: Well my A7 II 5 axis IBIS is nowhere close to my EM1 MKII????

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?

http://www.cipa.jp/image-stabilization/index_e.html

Huh......????

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. So an example of one run were the Olympus is this good and the Sony is that good is hardly convincing. At least CIPA does try to look at the statistics of stabilisation, rather than a single run. 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.

-- hide signature --

Ride easy, William.
Bob

Jeff Veteran Member • Posts: 5,823
Re: Well my A7 II 5 axis IBIS is nowhere close to my EM1 MKII????

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?

http://www.cipa.jp/image-stabilization/index_e.html

Huh......????

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

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.

I'm ok with everything you've written except when it gets to the highlighted comment.  Can you add some specificity to this claim, or is it speculation on your part?

 Jeff's gear list:Jeff's gear list
Olympus 45mm F1.2 Pro Olympus E-M1 Olympus OM-D E-M1X Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus 40-150mm F2.8 Pro +9 more
MEDISN
MEDISN Contributing Member • Posts: 868
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?

http://www.cipa.jp/image-stabilization/index_e.html

Huh......????

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.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads