The decision is about to be made, so speak now or forever hold your peace

Gary from Seattle wrote:

Not at all, Tom. Where IBIS really makes a difference is with long telephotos. In birding, one might shoot in good light and then the next bird will appear in shade. Great IBIS compensates on those images one otherwise messes up if the bird is sufficiently still.

IS makes it plausible for me to handhold 600mm, something I'm reminded of when I inadvertently switch it off and am suddenly viewing the world from a shopping cart hurtling down a gravel road.

Similarly, viewing through binoculars stronger than 12X is for me an exercise in futility (stabilized binos are another amazing development).

Recalling the myriad discussions of why Panny would never add IBIS because their OIS collection was "quite sufficient, thank you very much" I recognize there is a well of skepticism about the feature to this day. Which is fine, because it can be switched off.

Cheers,

Rick

eques wrote:

The 12-100. Slow and big, but what a lens!

But yes, the 40-150 f/4 is outstanding als well, if you want shallow DOF and the extra 50mm reach.

I fought getting the 12-100 f4 Pro. it was my last lens purchase to date. I took it on a short vacation and it won me over big time. you just can't beat the versatility and it's sharpness, contrast and color rendition along with unreal stability is untouchable.

Funkmon wrote:

That's correct. I work at a camera store to kill some time on the weekends and a coworker has the OM1.

I would also expect your birding capabilities to increase with the OM1.

OH MAN talk about kid in a candy story. Back in the 1980's I worked for a high-end audio dealer. Half my income went to a top line McIntosh preamp and amp along with a B&O linear turntable, a top-of-the-line Nakamichi deck and vertical all walnut cabinet along with top line Ohm speakers. I was constantly upgrading to the latest greatest models coming out. How to you stay out of trouble?

Gary from Seattle wrote:

Tom Caldwell wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

I think your comment on weather sealing definitely goes to OM-1; but you have left out one of the greatest advantages of Olympus/OMD gear, industry tops IBIS. The only real need for a tripod in this family of gear is for low light macro focus stacking or bracketing or for long duration astro images.

Canon R6II:

• Built-in image stabilization rated to 8.0 stops

the era of Olympus|OMDS wearing the IBIS crown has ended

Peter

Olympus made a rod for their own back when they based their claim for greatness of how good their IBIS was. It was a good selling point once but now that all cameras have IBIS its sales benefit has been neutered.

So IBIS is very useful but its benefit has been over-hyped to the point where the number of stops runs into crazy-land as if nobody can hold a camera steady and fast lenses have become a joke.

Not at all, Tom. Where IBIS really makes a difference is with long telephotos. In birding, one might shoot in good light and then the next bird will appear in shade. Great IBIS compensates on those images one otherwise messes up if the bird is sufficiently still.

Well before IBIS I had a bunch of Canon EF telephoto lenses and I really appreciated their lens-IS - they were virtually rock-solid when used their Len-IS was very good and tailored to each lens.  I agree that IBIS must be very good for telephoto and for birding.

I did not say that IBIS was not useful.  But there are some that think that their photography will fall in a heap if they do not have IBIS.  That is the over-hyped bit.

The pious hope that IBIS will cure everything including capturing images whilst break dancing ...

Vast overstatement. Who here is suggesting that?

There are plenty of comments about the living breathing excellence of even more stops worth of IBIS.  I was just being a bit theatrical .... sorry.

Looking forward for a claim of 20 stops when just 2 stops might be quite good enough.

2 stops would often not suffice to shoot a bird image. Even in mountain landscape or forest shots, I am comfortable going to 1/4 second standing in very low light.

Magnification is very close to 1:1.

In landscape it is often true that one needs to have an aperture of F6.3 to F8, so more demanding on SS.

An excellent proof - I take it that you will not be needing 20 stops worth ....

I say that in jest.

I have some Canon OIS binoculars which demonstrate the efficiency of lens IS in a dramatic way.  Hold them up and find your subject matter - and then press the OIS button - the images just stop the slightest dither - I could not see how they could be made more stable than rock solid.

So I agree that IBIS is great, it technically allows every lens mounted to be stabilised even though with manual lenses there is a huge difference in the need for stabilisation between fast wide lenses and long slow lenses - especially when in indifferent light or stopped down.

If I remember right the Olympus 300/4.0 needed some support from in-lens stabilisation because the IBIS in Olympus camera bodies did not always provide enough amplitude to cover this movement in this excellent lens.  It was probably the same reason why that other great (one of many) Olympus lens the 12-100/4.0 also performs so well with lens-IS.

Notably that latter lens kicks the IBIS facility off the G9 (no offence to Panasonic's IBIS) but the results are stable excellence nonetheless leaving a very stable lens-IS platform.  Furthermore the 12-100/4.0 makes the GM5 an equally stable platform. I have bene very happy with what in-lens IS can do.

Therefore IBIS is good, but Lens-IS is not bad either.  We just need to appreciate them for what they are and it is a pity that the hype of IBIS might mean that camera bodies without it are going to be very hard to sell.

Skeeterbytes wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

Not at all, Tom. Where IBIS really makes a difference is with long telephotos. In birding, one might shoot in good light and then the next bird will appear in shade. Great IBIS compensates on those images one otherwise messes up if the bird is sufficiently still.

In lens IS does this as well - it is the movement that is compensated and not the light. But I never said that IBIS was not good - just that it has become over-hyped (by some only).

IS makes it plausible for me to handhold 600mm, something I'm reminded of when I inadvertently switch it off and am suddenly viewing the world from a shopping cart hurtling down a gravel road.

Similarly, viewing through binoculars stronger than 12X is for me an exercise in futility (stabilized binos are another amazing development).

Yes I have one of them as well and they work very well - but this is surely more akin to lens-IS than IBIS?

Recalling the myriad discussions of why Panny would never add IBIS because their OIS collection was "quite sufficient, thank you very much" I recognize there is a well of skepticism about the feature to this day. Which is fine, because it can be switched off.

I have never felt disadvantaged using my well-known GM bodies with Panasonic OIS lenses - or even the  Olympus 12-100/4.0 IS as mentioned in another recent post.

In fact the G9 with said 12-100 is only using lens IS and I could hardly want for more.  Once the image is stabilised it can hardly become more stable no matter how much more stability capacity that you throw at it.

Vide: the Canon OIS binoculars thing - rock solid when the enacting button is pressed - how can any system beat rock-solid?  How many equivalent stops?  I have no idea.

Cheers,

Rick

Tom Caldwell wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

Tom Caldwell wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

I think your comment on weather sealing definitely goes to OM-1; but you have left out one of the greatest advantages of Olympus/OMD gear, industry tops IBIS. The only real need for a tripod in this family of gear is for low light macro focus stacking or bracketing or for long duration astro images.

Canon R6II:

• Built-in image stabilization rated to 8.0 stops

the era of Olympus|OMDS wearing the IBIS crown has ended

Peter

Olympus made a rod for their own back when they based their claim for greatness of how good their IBIS was. It was a good selling point once but now that all cameras have IBIS its sales benefit has been neutered.

So IBIS is very useful but its benefit has been over-hyped to the point where the number of stops runs into crazy-land as if nobody can hold a camera steady and fast lenses have become a joke.

Not at all, Tom. Where IBIS really makes a difference is with long telephotos. In birding, one might shoot in good light and then the next bird will appear in shade. Great IBIS compensates on those images one otherwise messes up if the bird is sufficiently still.

Well before IBIS I had a bunch of Canon EF telephoto lenses and I really appreciated their lens-IS - they were virtually rock-solid when used their Len-IS was very good and tailored to each lens. I agree that IBIS must be very good for telephoto and for birding.

I did not say that IBIS was not useful. But there are some that think that their photography will fall in a heap if they do not have IBIS. That is the over-hyped bit.

Many people believe the same about weather-sealing.  Also over-hyped.

The pious hope that IBIS will cure everything including capturing images whilst break dancing ...

Vast overstatement. Who here is suggesting that?

There are plenty of comments about the living breathing excellence of even more stops worth of IBIS. I was just being a bit theatrical .... sorry.

Looking forward for a claim of 20 stops when just 2 stops might be quite good enough.

2 stops would often not suffice to shoot a bird image. Even in mountain landscape or forest shots, I am comfortable going to 1/4 second standing in very low light.

Magnification is very close to 1:1.

In landscape it is often true that one needs to have an aperture of F6.3 to F8, so more demanding on SS.

An excellent proof - I take it that you will not be needing 20 stops worth ....

I say that in jest.

I have some Canon OIS binoculars which demonstrate the efficiency of lens IS in a dramatic way. Hold them up and find your subject matter - and then press the OIS button - the images just stop the slightest dither - I could not see how they could be made more stable than rock solid.

So I agree that IBIS is great, it technically allows every lens mounted to be stabilised even though with manual lenses there is a huge difference in the need for stabilisation between fast wide lenses and long slow lenses - especially when in indifferent light or stopped down.

If I remember right the Olympus 300/4.0 needed some support from in-lens stabilisation because the IBIS in Olympus camera bodies did not always provide enough amplitude to cover this movement in this excellent lens. It was probably the same reason why that other great (one of many) Olympus lens the 12-100/4.0 also performs so well with lens-IS.

Notably that latter lens kicks the IBIS facility off the G9 (no offence to Panasonic's IBIS) but the results are stable excellence nonetheless leaving a very stable lens-IS platform. Furthermore the 12-100/4.0 makes the GM5 an equally stable platform. I have bene very happy with what in-lens IS can do.

Therefore IBIS is good, but Lens-IS is not bad either. We just need to appreciate them for what they are and it is a pity that the hype of IBIS might mean that camera bodies without it are going to be very hard to sell.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

Tommy S wrote:

• Probably better weather sealing (I have never tried shooting in the rain or snow)

Zero evidence of that. Canons are typically pretty good.

• Better F-speed for 200-300mm of FL equivalent (40-150 F2.8 vs EF 70-200 F2.8)

Why is that relevant? The effect of the same f-stop will be different - different depth of field and different amount of light captured. If you use  f/2.8 on the OM1 and f/5.6 on the R6II, you'll get the same results. If you were to use Canon at f/2.8 also, it would capture 4 times more light and the SNR would be twice as good, but also with the drawback or benefit of more shallow depth of field.

Both are fine cameras and if the image quality envelope of OM1 is sufficient, then there's little point in going for the Canon.

Be More wrote:

The stability of the 12-100mm on the G9 allows 80mp HHHR (using tripod mode HR mode 2) that processes quicker than the OM1's as well as compensating for motion blur better.

I use my OM1 with the PL200mm and G9 with the 12-100mm, go figure.

IF Panasonic happens to come out with a G9MkII with at least a 5.7 viewfinder and their newly developed top line Phase Detection I would likely buy one. Till that happens its OM all the way for me.

Tom Caldwell wrote:

Skeeterbytes wrote:

IS makes it plausible for me to handhold 600mm, something I'm reminded of when I inadvertently switch it off and am suddenly viewing the world from a shopping cart hurtling down a gravel road.

Similarly, viewing through binoculars stronger than 12X is for me an exercise in futility (stabilized binos are another amazing development).

Yes I have one of them as well and they work very well - but this is surely more akin to lens-IS than IBIS?

In photography for me it's a distinction without a difference. The two approaches have their plusses and minuses while synchronization gives the literal best of both worlds.

What IBIS does, of course, is democratize stabilization by offering it from 6mm to 600mm and beyond. What's not to like?

Cheers,

Rick

abera wrote:

Tommy S wrote:

• Probably better weather sealing (I have never tried shooting in the rain or snow)

Zero evidence of that. Canons are typically pretty good.

This article from a few years ago about the experience of some photographers with weather-sealing, including Canon:

https://www.luminous-landscape.com/antartica-2007-what-worked-what-didnt/