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

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
This thread is locked.
MEDISN
MEDISN Contributing Member • Posts: 772
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.

Iliah Borg Forum Pro • Posts: 25,832
Dear Diary...

VideoPic wrote:

I am pro MFT and like to encourage MFT owners to enjoy, believe in, trust their equipment, hobby, share, plus plus.

By misinforming?

-- hide signature --
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 61,404
Re: Well my A7 II 5 axis IBIS is nowhere close to my EM1 MKII????

Jeff 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. 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?

The evidence is simply that Olympus has extracted the last EV. Commercial secrets being what they are, they're never likely to let the information out. It just wouldn't be sensible, would it? It's about as likely as VW telling the world in advance that they were gaming the emissions standards. Just not ever likely to happen.

It gets to be the same in all these discussions, if Olympus hasn't publicly told the world that they are engaging in misleading marketing practice, we must assume that they are not. Just to remind you, Olympus is presently paying out millions of dollars for downright lying in its medical business, where the lies can have fatal consequences. Thankfully, in hobby photography it's not so serious.

-- hide signature --

Ride easy, William.
Bob

cba_melbourne Senior Member • Posts: 1,010
Re: Well my A7 II 5 axis IBIS is nowhere close to my EM1 MKII????

bobn2 wrote:

Jeff 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. 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?

The evidence is simply that Olympus has extracted the last EV. Commercial secrets being what they are, they're never likely to let the information out. It just wouldn't be sensible, would it? It's about as likely as VW telling the world in advance that they were gaming the emissions standards. Just not ever likely to happen.

It gets to be the same in all these discussions, if Olympus hasn't publicly told the world that they are engaging in misleading marketing practice, we must assume that they are not. Just to remind you, Olympus is presently paying out millions of dollars for downright lying in its medical business, where the lies can have fatal consequences. Thankfully, in hobby photography it's not so serious.

Every camera manufacturer will surely extract the last EV they can. The CIPA standard gives some flexibility.

Emission standards are a different thing. These are set and enforced by governments.

CIPA standards are not international standards. They are not even Japanese standards. CIPA is just a Japan based Camera and Imaging Producs Association. Funded by it's members, solely to serve the interests of it's members - manufacturers. The testing is not done by an independent body, but by each manufacturer themselves.

 cba_melbourne's gear list:cba_melbourne's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Olympus E-M5 II Olympus PEN-F Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 +11 more
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 61,404
Re: Well my A7 II 5 axis IBIS is nowhere close to my EM1 MKII????

cba_melbourne wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Jeff 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. 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?

The evidence is simply that Olympus has extracted the last EV. Commercial secrets being what they are, they're never likely to let the information out. It just wouldn't be sensible, would it? It's about as likely as VW telling the world in advance that they were gaming the emissions standards. Just not ever likely to happen.

It gets to be the same in all these discussions, if Olympus hasn't publicly told the world that they are engaging in misleading marketing practice, we must assume that they are not. Just to remind you, Olympus is presently paying out millions of dollars for downright lying in its medical business, where the lies can have fatal consequences. Thankfully, in hobby photography it's not so serious.

Every camera manufacturer will surely extract the last EV they can. The CIPA standard gives some flexibility.

Sure, and Olympus extracts the best.

Emission standards are a different thing. These are set and enforced by governments.

That makes it different in terms of consequence of gaming them. It doesn't make it different in principle.

CIPA standards are not international standards. They are not even Japanese standards. CIPA is just a Japan based Camera and Imaging Producs Association. Funded by it's members, solely to serve the interests of it's members - manufacturers. The testing is not done by an independent body, but by each manufacturer themselves.

It doesn't make any difference to the principle whatsoever. There is a set of standards, used in advertising to promote the product and the various manufacturers game them. Some do it better than others.

-- hide signature --

Ride easy, William.
Bob

cba_melbourne Senior Member • Posts: 1,010
Re: Well my A7 II 5 axis IBIS is nowhere close to my EM1 MKII????

bobn2 wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Jeff 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. 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?

The evidence is simply that Olympus has extracted the last EV. Commercial secrets being what they are, they're never likely to let the information out. It just wouldn't be sensible, would it? It's about as likely as VW telling the world in advance that they were gaming the emissions standards. Just not ever likely to happen.

It gets to be the same in all these discussions, if Olympus hasn't publicly told the world that they are engaging in misleading marketing practice, we must assume that they are not. Just to remind you, Olympus is presently paying out millions of dollars for downright lying in its medical business, where the lies can have fatal consequences. Thankfully, in hobby photography it's not so serious.

Every camera manufacturer will surely extract the last EV they can. The CIPA standard gives some flexibility.

Sure, and Olympus extracts the best.

Emission standards are a different thing. These are set and enforced by governments.

That makes it different in terms of consequence of gaming them. It doesn't make it different in principle.

CIPA standards are not international standards. They are not even Japanese standards. CIPA is just a Japan based Camera and Imaging Producs Association. Funded by it's members, solely to serve the interests of it's members - manufacturers. The testing is not done by an independent body, but by each manufacturer themselves.

It doesn't make any difference to the principle whatsoever. There is a set of standards, used in advertising to promote the product and the various manufacturers game them. Some do it better than others.

But, isn't it true that this so called "set of standards" was created for no other reason than advertising? I mean, it serves no other purpose I could think of.

All Japanese camera manufacturers jointly own CIPA. If one member was abusing (or gaming as you say) IS figures, don't you think the other members would find ways to stop that? Or is it maybe so, that all are perfectly happy to play the same game?

 cba_melbourne's gear list:cba_melbourne's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Olympus E-M5 II Olympus PEN-F Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 +11 more
Jeff Veteran Member • Posts: 5,711
Re: Well my A7 II 5 axis IBIS is nowhere close to my EM1 MKII????

bobn2 wrote:

Jeff 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. 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?

The evidence is simply that Olympus has extracted the last EV. Commercial secrets being what they are, they're never likely to let the information out. It just wouldn't be sensible, would it? It's about as likely as VW telling the world in advance that they were gaming the emissions standards. Just not ever likely to happen.

It gets to be the same in all these discussions, if Olympus hasn't publicly told the world that they are engaging in misleading marketing practice, we must assume that they are not. Just to remind you, Olympus is presently paying out millions of dollars for downright lying in its medical business, where the lies can have fatal consequences. Thankfully, in hobby photography it's not so serious.

In other words, this is speculation on your part.

The comparison to VW is interesting. Their unethical behavior was uncovered by a lab at the University of West Virginia that found a huge discrepancy between field and lab emissions testing. It turned out the VW firmware for diesel engines was intended to defeat lab testing. The firmware turned on emissions control devices when test circumstances were detected, otherwise left them off in the field where they would detract from performance. VW was caught, heads rolled, penalties paid, and presumably, everything is back in order.

Extending that standard to evaluating claims Olympus has made about IBIS, one of the distinguishing bits of the camera culture is the testing done by third-party reviewers. If Olympus was engaging in the unethical behavior you're suggesting, wouldn't that be obvious by now?

I've been around long enough to be skeptical of just about everything but my dogs' loyalty. Oly is claiming to be the performance champ with IBIS using the CIPA testing protocol. That may or may not be true, and it's fair to be skeptical, but wouldn't it be better to cite actual evidence before making scurrilous accusations of unethical behavior?

 Jeff's gear list:Jeff's gear list
Olympus 45mm F1.2 Pro Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus OM-D E-M1X Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 150mm 1:2.0 +9 more
OP Jefftan Veteran Member • Posts: 3,130
Re: Anecdotes VS testing

one don't need CIPA to told u only olympus (maybe Panasonic) can do multi second handheld shote at wide angle

2-5 seconds or even longer

dream with other ibis

u trust this or CIPA?

James Stirling
James Stirling Senior Member • Posts: 4,701
Re: Anecdotes VS testing

Jefftan wrote:

one don't need CIPA to told u only olympus (maybe Panasonic) can do multi second handheld shote at wide angle

I have seen lots of claims about that unfortunately actually sharp results are rather thin on the ground. I put them in the amazing for the shutter speed but far from acceptably sharp for me category

2-5 seconds or even longer

dream with other ibis

u trust this or CIPA?

-- hide signature --

Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

 James Stirling's gear list:James Stirling's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Sony a7R II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Sony a7R III Nikon Z7 +13 more
MEDISN
MEDISN Contributing Member • Posts: 772
Re: Well my A7 II 5 axis IBIS is nowhere close to my EM1 MKII????

bobn2 wrote:

Jeff 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. 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?

The evidence is simply that Olympus has extracted the last EV. Commercial secrets being what they are, they're never likely to let the information out. It just wouldn't be sensible, would it? It's about as likely as VW telling the world in advance that they were gaming the emissions standards. Just not ever likely to happen.

Are you suggesting that Olympus only achieves 5+ stops during the CIPA test?  Despite most hands-on reviews achieving that and more?  Conversely, should I sue Sony because my 5-stop CIPA rated A9 barely achieves 3 stops in actual use?  Or that the 20fps CAF they advertise for the A9 is really only 16fps with a static subject?

It gets to be the same in all these discussions, if Olympus hasn't publicly told the world that they are engaging in misleading marketing practice, we must assume that they are not. Just to remind you, Olympus is presently paying out millions of dollars for downright lying in its medical business, where the lies can have fatal consequences. Thankfully, in hobby photography it's not so serious.

That wasn't misleading marketing, it was allegedly failing to disclose a defect which made endoscopes "difficult to clean" at some institutions.

golfhov Veteran Member • Posts: 9,775
Re: Anecdotes VS testing

Jefftan wrote:

one don't need CIPA to told u only olympus (maybe Panasonic) can do multi second handheld shote at wide angle

2-5 seconds or even longer

dream with other ibis

u trust this or CIPA?

My trust list

1. Myself

2. Testing

3. Anecdotes

The problem with anecdotes is they are often shared by those without a baseline.

In three out of three of these the better stabilization on m4/3 comes out ahead. Generally about a stop but will vary depending on model focal length, testing method, etc.

Only in one of those do gross exaggeration s of differences come out. I have tested and seen plenty of multi second wide angle exposures. The claims here overstate the reality

 golfhov's gear list:golfhov's gear list
Panasonic LX10 Sony a7R II Sony a7 III Samyang 14mm F2.8 ED AS IF UMC Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD +11 more
OP Jefftan Veteran Member • Posts: 3,130
Re: Well my A7 II 5 axis IBIS is nowhere close to my EM1 MKII????

MEDISN wrote:

Are you suggesting that Olympus only achieves 5+ stops during the CIPA test? Despite most hands-on reviews achieving that and more? Conversely, should I sue Sony because my 5-stop CIPA rated A9 barely achieves 3 stops in actual use? Or that the 20fps CAF they advertise for the A9 is really only 16fps with a static subject?

i am surprised u get 5 stop

my A6500 ibis is almost useless with 10-18mm OIS

i wonder if it is because OIS is fighting with ibis or mine is defective

just don't work, no better than OIS alone or even worse

bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 61,404
Re: Well my A7 II 5 axis IBIS is nowhere close to my EM1 MKII????

MEDISN wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Jeff 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. 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?

The evidence is simply that Olympus has extracted the last EV. Commercial secrets being what they are, they're never likely to let the information out. It just wouldn't be sensible, would it? It's about as likely as VW telling the world in advance that they were gaming the emissions standards. Just not ever likely to happen.

Are you suggesting that Olympus only achieves 5+ stops during the CIPA test?

No, I'm not saying that. I wonder where you could have got that idea from what I wrote.

Despite most hands-on reviews achieving that and more?

The real question is what '5+' stops actually means. For the CIPA test, its referred to 'bokeh amount', that is the 'bokeh amount' is the same as uncorrected shots with a shutter speed 5+ stops higher. One of the problems is it doesn't say that that 'bokeh amount' is acceptable.

Conversely, should I sue Sony because my 5-stop CIPA rated A9 barely achieves 3 stops in actual use? Or that the 20fps CAF they advertise for the A9 is really only 16fps with a static subject?

Up to you. Sounds like misleading advertising, so in many jurisdictions you could sue. the real question is what would you be suing for. What damage have you suffered as a result of having succumbed to the misleading advertising?

It gets to be the same in all these discussions, if Olympus hasn't publicly told the world that they are engaging in misleading marketing practice, we must assume that they are not. Just to remind you, Olympus is presently paying out millions of dollars for downright lying in its medical business, where the lies can have fatal consequences. Thankfully, in hobby photography it's not so serious.

That wasn't misleading marketing, it was allegedly failing to disclose a defect which made endoscopes "difficult to clean" at some institutions.

And all the time putting out marketing material advertising the cleanability of the product (which they were). In fact, the idea that this endoscope was easily sterilised was one of its major sales points versus the competition. So it was precisely misleading advertising. Not only did they know that the product couldn't meet advertised claims, they took active steps to prevent that information getting out.

-- hide signature --

Ride easy, William.
Bob

bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 61,404
Re: Well my A7 II 5 axis IBIS is nowhere close to my EM1 MKII????

cba_melbourne wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Jeff 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. 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?

The evidence is simply that Olympus has extracted the last EV. Commercial secrets being what they are, they're never likely to let the information out. It just wouldn't be sensible, would it? It's about as likely as VW telling the world in advance that they were gaming the emissions standards. Just not ever likely to happen.

It gets to be the same in all these discussions, if Olympus hasn't publicly told the world that they are engaging in misleading marketing practice, we must assume that they are not. Just to remind you, Olympus is presently paying out millions of dollars for downright lying in its medical business, where the lies can have fatal consequences. Thankfully, in hobby photography it's not so serious.

Every camera manufacturer will surely extract the last EV they can. The CIPA standard gives some flexibility.

Sure, and Olympus extracts the best.

Emission standards are a different thing. These are set and enforced by governments.

That makes it different in terms of consequence of gaming them. It doesn't make it different in principle.

CIPA standards are not international standards. They are not even Japanese standards. CIPA is just a Japan based Camera and Imaging Producs Association. Funded by it's members, solely to serve the interests of it's members - manufacturers. The testing is not done by an independent body, but by each manufacturer themselves.

It doesn't make any difference to the principle whatsoever. There is a set of standards, used in advertising to promote the product and the various manufacturers game them. Some do it better than others.

But, isn't it true that this so called "set of standards" was created for no other reason than advertising? I mean, it serves no other purpose I could think of.

It was provided as a common reference point for product claims.

All Japanese camera manufacturers jointly own CIPA. If one member was abusing (or gaming as you say) IS figures, don't you think the other members would find ways to stop that? Or is it maybe so, that all are perfectly happy to play the same game?

Of course they are happy to play the same game. That's what the game is. It happens in every industry, where there is some standardised quantitative metric which consumers use to judge products. You'll find it in they automotive industry with respect to fuel consumption, power, tyre life. You'll find it in the white goods industry with respect to power efficiency, noise and so on.

-- hide signature --

Ride easy, William.
Bob

golfhov Veteran Member • Posts: 9,775
Lesson 2

i think the premise of this post is somewhat valid. Evaluating the marketing claims of manufacturers. Of course it is kind of odd how ALL FF manufacturers are lumped together even though they aren't some sort of collective.

What is really strange with this conversation is the popular attitude that all 4/3 marketing claims(particularly Olympus) are true and every other manufacturer is a liar.

Odd.......

 golfhov's gear list:golfhov's gear list
Panasonic LX10 Sony a7R II Sony a7 III Samyang 14mm F2.8 ED AS IF UMC Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD +11 more
MEDISN
MEDISN Contributing Member • Posts: 772
Re: Well my A7 II 5 axis IBIS is nowhere close to my EM1 MKII????

bobn2 wrote:

MEDISN wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Jeff 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. 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?

The evidence is simply that Olympus has extracted the last EV. Commercial secrets being what they are, they're never likely to let the information out. It just wouldn't be sensible, would it? It's about as likely as VW telling the world in advance that they were gaming the emissions standards. Just not ever likely to happen.

Are you suggesting that Olympus only achieves 5+ stops during the CIPA test?

No, I'm not saying that. I wonder where you could have got that idea from what I wrote.

Then what is this about misleading marketing practice??

"if Olympus hasn't publicly told the world that they are engaging in misleading marketing practice, we must assume that they are not."

If they haven't "publicly told the world"...as in they are hiding data about CIPA tests?  I'm just trying to understand what you're saying.

Despite most hands-on reviews achieving that and more?

The real question is what '5+' stops actually means. For the CIPA test, its referred to 'bokeh amount', that is the 'bokeh amount' is the same as uncorrected shots with a shutter speed 5+ stops higher. One of the problems is it doesn't say that that 'bokeh amount' is acceptable.

We've agreed (now and in the past) on the real-world translation of these tests.  It strikes me as strange that two cameras can be rated at 5-stops stabilization when one clearly achieves this with a frequency the other can only dream of.

Conversely, should I sue Sony because my 5-stop CIPA rated A9 barely achieves 3 stops in actual use? Or that the 20fps CAF they advertise for the A9 is really only 16fps with a static subject?

Up to you. Sounds like misleading advertising, so in many jurisdictions you could sue. the real question is what would you be suing for. What damage have you suffered as a result of having succumbed to the misleading advertising?

Right, marketing is just that.  Does it always translate to actual results?

It gets to be the same in all these discussions, if Olympus hasn't publicly told the world that they are engaging in misleading marketing practice, we must assume that they are not. Just to remind you, Olympus is presently paying out millions of dollars for downright lying in its medical business, where the lies can have fatal consequences. Thankfully, in hobby photography it's not so serious.

That wasn't misleading marketing, it was allegedly failing to disclose a defect which made endoscopes "difficult to clean" at some institutions.

And all the time putting out marketing material advertising the cleanability of the product (which they were). In fact, the idea that this endoscope was easily sterilised was one of its major sales points versus the competition. So it was precisely misleading advertising. Not only did they know that the product couldn't meet advertised claims, they took active steps to prevent that information getting out.

None of the lawsuits allege misleading marketing.  Failure to educate users, failure to notify FDA of changes to design, failure to disclose internal communications appear but nothing related to marketing.

golfhov Veteran Member • Posts: 9,775
links

The real question is what '5+' stops actually means. For the CIPA test, its referred to 'bokeh amount', that is the 'bokeh amount' is the same as uncorrected shots with a shutter speed 5+ stops higher. One of the problems is it doesn't say that that 'bokeh amount' is acceptable.

We've agreed (now and in the past) on the real-world translation of these tests. It strikes me as strange that two cameras can be rated at 5-stops stabilization when one clearly achieves this with a frequency the other can only dream of.

many possible reasons. That the CIPA test needs improved. I have seen detailed explanations regarding the frequency of shake they use and type.

Another is that though the test is detailed perhaps the manufacturers know how to game it with certain lenses that help the test. Either due to weight, balance, best FL I don't know

FWIW myself nor DPR nor amny other people that have tested various IBIS systems would overall say

"one clearly achieves this with a frequency the other can only dream of."

I would say the best from 4/3 is definitely better . but outside of video I don't know that they have such an overwhelming lead. At UWA I haven't found them to be far apart at all. DPR seemed to concur

 golfhov's gear list:golfhov's gear list
Panasonic LX10 Sony a7R II Sony a7 III Samyang 14mm F2.8 ED AS IF UMC Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD +11 more
MEDISN
MEDISN Contributing Member • Posts: 772
Re: links

golfhov wrote:

The real question is what '5+' stops actually means. For the CIPA test, its referred to 'bokeh amount', that is the 'bokeh amount' is the same as uncorrected shots with a shutter speed 5+ stops higher. One of the problems is it doesn't say that that 'bokeh amount' is acceptable.

We've agreed (now and in the past) on the real-world translation of these tests. It strikes me as strange that two cameras can be rated at 5-stops stabilization when one clearly achieves this with a frequency the other can only dream of.

many possible reasons. That the CIPA test needs improved. I have seen detailed explanations regarding the frequency of shake they use and type.

Another is that though the test is detailed perhaps the manufacturers know how to game it with certain lenses that help the test. Either due to weight, balance, best FL I don't know

FWIW myself nor DPR nor amny other people that have tested various IBIS systems would overall say

"one clearly achieves this with a frequency the other can only dream of."

I suppose I am not "other people".    I can only relay my results from years of use across FF Sony and mFT as well as individual direct comparisons I've taken the time to report.

IBIS Real-World Use: 4 MILC Cameras

A7II IBIS

A9 IBIS

I would say the best from 4/3 is definitely better . but outside of video I don't know that they have such an overwhelming lead.

2+ stops stabilization in stills may not be overwhelming to be honest.  By the same token 2-stops total light gathering may not be overwhelming either.   Different photographers, different needs, different priorities.

At UWA I haven't found them to be far apart at all. DPR seemed to concur

Can you show some examples at similar UWA focal lengths, same day, same scene?  I would love to do multi-second handheld exposures with my Sony and 15mm Voigt.  I am lucky to get 1/2s which is my personal best with Sony.

golfhov Veteran Member • Posts: 9,775
Re: links

MEDISN wrote:

golfhov wrote:

The real question is what '5+' stops actually means. For the CIPA test, its referred to 'bokeh amount', that is the 'bokeh amount' is the same as uncorrected shots with a shutter speed 5+ stops higher. One of the problems is it doesn't say that that 'bokeh amount' is acceptable.

We've agreed (now and in the past) on the real-world translation of these tests. It strikes me as strange that two cameras can be rated at 5-stops stabilization when one clearly achieves this with a frequency the other can only dream of.

many possible reasons. That the CIPA test needs improved. I have seen detailed explanations regarding the frequency of shake they use and type.

Another is that though the test is detailed perhaps the manufacturers know how to game it with certain lenses that help the test. Either due to weight, balance, best FL I don't know

FWIW myself nor DPR nor amny other people that have tested various IBIS systems would overall say

"one clearly achieves this with a frequency the other can only dream of."

I suppose I am not "other people". I can only relay my results from years of use across FF Sony and mFT as well as individual direct comparisons I've taken the time to report.

This is what we call anecdotes. I am not familiar r one second saying the individual giving the statement is "wrong".  Just the old YMMV.

IBIS Real-World Use: 4 MILC Cameras

A7II IBIS

A9 IBIS

I would say the best from 4/3 is definitely better . but outside of video I don't know that they have such an overwhelming lead.

2+ stops stabilization in stills may not be overwhelming to be honest. By the same token 2-stops total light gathering may not be overwhelming either. Different photographers, different needs, different priorities.

Different lenses, different expectations, etc. Oddly enough the UWA is where most of the claims come from and yet my own and DPRs testing don't put things very far apart there. Normal focal length a stop give or take depending. At the telephoto side 4/3 does seem to outperform. Here I probably wouldn't argue two stops

At UWA I haven't found them to be far apart at all. DPR seemed to concur

Can you show some examples at similar UWA focal lengths, same day, same scene?

Nope. I could circle back to random shots but nothing scientific. Therefore pointless

I would love to do multi-second handheld exposures with my Sony and 15mm Voigt. I am lucky to get 1/2s which is my personal best with Sony.

Somewhat where I fall too. Then again I couldn't match the 2-10sec claims that get thrown around here. Almost every example I have seen posted has been pretty soft. I don't know if that is part of it is that a lot of people here are ok with good enough since they are just happy to be free of a tripod or what.

I can circle back to links of the IBIS testing that DPR now features. Or a quick search will pull them up. Not as scientific as CIPA. Which out of curiousity I looked up and it seems the em1ii claims 5.5 while Sony claims 5. Both "up to" instead of a hard number. So there is a half stop already.

 golfhov's gear list:golfhov's gear list
Panasonic LX10 Sony a7R II Sony a7 III Samyang 14mm F2.8 ED AS IF UMC Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD +11 more
MEDISN
MEDISN Contributing Member • Posts: 772
Re: links

golfhov wrote:

MEDISN wrote:

golfhov wrote:

The real question is what '5+' stops actually means. For the CIPA test, its referred to 'bokeh amount', that is the 'bokeh amount' is the same as uncorrected shots with a shutter speed 5+ stops higher. One of the problems is it doesn't say that that 'bokeh amount' is acceptable.

We've agreed (now and in the past) on the real-world translation of these tests. It strikes me as strange that two cameras can be rated at 5-stops stabilization when one clearly achieves this with a frequency the other can only dream of.

many possible reasons. That the CIPA test needs improved. I have seen detailed explanations regarding the frequency of shake they use and type.

Another is that though the test is detailed perhaps the manufacturers know how to game it with certain lenses that help the test. Either due to weight, balance, best FL I don't know

FWIW myself nor DPR nor amny other people that have tested various IBIS systems would overall say

"one clearly achieves this with a frequency the other can only dream of."

I suppose I am not "other people". I can only relay my results from years of use across FF Sony and mFT as well as individual direct comparisons I've taken the time to report.

This is what we call anecdotes. I am not familiar r one second saying the individual giving the statement is "wrong". Just the old YMMV.

Which is why I continue to look for others experience. Ultimately, the only experience that matters to me is my own. What others can (or cannot) do have no bearing on my work. If there is something that can be learned, or done differently, I am all ears.

IBIS Real-World Use: 4 MILC Cameras

A7II IBIS

A9 IBIS

I would say the best from 4/3 is definitely better . but outside of video I don't know that they have such an overwhelming lead.

2+ stops stabilization in stills may not be overwhelming to be honest. By the same token 2-stops total light gathering may not be overwhelming either. Different photographers, different needs, different priorities.

Different lenses, different expectations, etc. Oddly enough the UWA is where most of the claims come from and yet my own and DPRs testing don't put things very far apart there. Normal focal length a stop give or take depending.

Examples? What are we calling "normal", 35mm? A quick look at Lightroom shows my longest 35mm Sony handheld shot is 1/5s (A7RII). Several 1/10th sec shots with the A9. PEN-F shots down to 1s, EM5 shots at 1s and EM1mkII shots at 2s. SYNC-IS shots down to 8 seconds with the 12-100. It's really not even close to what Sony provides at 35mm.

At the telephoto side 4/3 does seem to outperform. Here I probably wouldn't argue two stops

At least. With SYNC-IS even DPR achieved 7-stops with the 300/4.

At UWA I haven't found them to be far apart at all. DPR seemed to concur

Can you show some examples at similar UWA focal lengths, same day, same scene?

Nope. I could circle back to random shots but nothing scientific. Therefore pointless

Try it sometime - your A7III and whatever other IBIS cameras you shoot with. You might be surprised at the difference compared back-to-back.

I would love to do multi-second handheld exposures with my Sony and 15mm Voigt. I am lucky to get 1/2s which is my personal best with Sony.

Somewhat where I fall too. Then again I couldn't match the 2-10sec claims that get thrown around here.

With what camera/lens/focal length have you tried?

Almost every example I have seen posted has been pretty soft. I don't know if that is part of it is that a lot of people here are ok with good enough since they are just happy to be free of a tripod or what.

"Soft", "good enough", are rather subjective. Perhaps all my shots are soft - tripod or otherwise! Here are some recent handheld examples at slower shutter speeds. You decide.

I can circle back to links of the IBIS testing that DPR now features.

Different people testing on different days. Makes it hard to compare across cameras/lenses.

Or a quick search will pull them up. Not as scientific as CIPA. Which out of curiousity I looked up and it seems the em1ii claims 5.5 while Sony claims 5. Both "up to" instead of a hard number. So there is a half stop already.

Sony claims 5.5 stops on the A7RIII *depending on lens*. I have no issue with the claim. Just curious to understand if/how people are achieving this.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads