Ibis only vs ibis+oss

[alantan]

With the newer Sony bodies like a7r5 and a7cii Sony is claiming that oss and ibis can work in co-ordination.

https://support.d-imaging.sony.co.j...body and the,than would otherwise be possible.

has anyone tested this by comparing two lens of the same focal length, one with OSs and one without and see if OSs improves the already excellent ibis? Only a few OSs lens are supported like the 70-200mm gmii and 24-105mm.

I did a test with 85mm prime and 70-200mm gmii on my a7r5 and I can’t really see any improvement using the OSs lens. @85mm I can hit 1/4 secs where the hit rate starts to fall to like 50% or worse and using the OSs lens don’t help at all or is so minor that I need to use 1/8 sec on both lens to get decent hit rate, free standing. Bracing helps to allow me to hit 1/4 on both lens but I don’t see a difference between the two either.

--
my pics

 

[techjedi]

With the newer Sony bodies like a7r5 and a7cii Sony is claiming that oss and ibis can work in co-ordination.

https://support.d-imaging.sony.co.j...body and the,than would otherwise be possible.

has anyone tested this by comparing two lens of the same focal length, one with OSs and one without and see if OSs improves the already excellent ibis? Only a few OSs lens are supported like the 70-200mm gmii and 24-105mm.

I did a test with 85mm prime and 70-200mm gmii on my a7r5 and I can’t really see any improvement using the OSs lens. @85mm I can hit 1/4 secs where the hit rate starts to fall to like 50% or worse and using the OSs lens don’t help at all or is so minor that I need to use 1/8 sec on both lens to get decent hit rate, free standing. Bracing helps to allow me to hit 1/4 on both lens but I don’t see a difference between the two either.

Sony cameras have, since IBIS was first introduced in the a7II, always touted that OSS + IBIS work together.

Here is a marketing shot from when the first IBIS enabled body, the a7II was released:



Notice there is described that OSS lens provided only Pitch and Yaw stabilization axes and the body is capable of supplying the same axes plus an additional 3 axes, roll, x and y.

Now, pitch and yaw in the lens is only *better* than the IBIS version when the lens is 90mm or longer. This is why nearly all full frame lenses shorter than 90mm released after the a7II do not have OSS. The OSS is not helpful on top of IBIS in those cases. By contrast, nearly all lenses 90mm or longer released after the a7II continue to have OSS and it works in conjunction with IBIS enabled bodies.

So, in summary, nothing is new here. You will find that for 90mm and longer lenses, the combination of OSS + IBIS will be better than if you used the same lens on an A7.

So any testing with modern bodies are likely going to be better just because of ongoing AF/IBIS improvements, not because there is some new feature in the area of OSS+IBIS

I wonder if this new "Image Stabilization with Body–Lens Coordinated Control" actually means the Pitch and Yaw from both OSS and IBIS are used at the same time, but the documentation isn't really clear.

--
http://www.instagram.com/foundry412

 

[Hotel Lonely]

With the newer Sony bodies like a7r5 and a7cii Sony is claiming that oss and ibis can work in co-ordination.

https://support.d-imaging.sony.co.j...body and the,than would otherwise be possible.

has anyone tested this by comparing two lens of the same focal length, one with OSs and one without and see if OSs improves the already excellent ibis? Only a few OSs lens are supported like the 70-200mm gmii and 24-105mm.

I did a test with 85mm prime and 70-200mm gmii on my a7r5 and I can’t really see any improvement using the OSs lens. @85mm I can hit 1/4 secs where the hit rate starts to fall to like 50% or worse and using the OSs lens don’t help at all or is so minor that I need to use 1/8 sec on both lens to get decent hit rate, free standing. Bracing helps to allow me to hit 1/4 on both lens but I don’t see a difference between the two either.

Sony cameras have, since IBIS was first introduced in the a7II, always touted that OSS + IBIS work together.

Here is a marketing shot from when the first IBIS enabled body, the a7II was released:



Notice there is described that OSS lens provided only Pitch and Yaw stabilization axes and the body is capable of supplying the same axes plus an additional 3 axes, roll, x and y.

Now, pitch and yaw in the lens is only *better* than the IBIS version when the lens is 90mm or longer. This is why nearly all full frame lenses shorter than 90mm released after the a7II do not have OSS. The OSS is not helpful on top of IBIS in those cases. By contrast, nearly all lenses 90mm or longer released after the a7II continue to have OSS and it works in conjunction with IBIS enabled bodies.

So, in summary, nothing is new here. You will find that for 90mm and longer lenses, the combination of OSS + IBIS will be better than if you used the same lens on an A7.

So any testing with modern bodies are likely going to be better just because of ongoing AF/IBIS improvements, not because there is some new feature in the area of OSS+IBIS

I wonder if this new "Image Stabilization with Body–Lens Coordinated Control" actually means the Pitch and Yaw from both OSS and IBIS are used at the same time, but the documentation isn't really clear.

Canon made a interesting table:

Canon on how its lenses work with IBIS:

- For lenses only come with normal Optical IS, it works just like Sony's old systems (from A7ii to A7iv).

Optical for Pitch & Yaw, IBIS for XY and Roll.

- For RF OIS lenses, on Pitch & Yaw, they have a "Coordinated Control" mode which is very similar to Sony's new formula. Also new stuff to me is that for hybrid is lenses, they use OSS to compensate XY when shooting stills, but uses IBIS when shooting videos. Not sure of why though.

So yeah, my guess is that Sony used the same pitch yaw coordinated compensation

 

[Hotel Lonely]

With the newer Sony bodies like a7r5 and a7cii Sony is claiming that oss and ibis can work in co-ordination.

https://support.d-imaging.sony.co.j...body and the,than would otherwise be possible.

has anyone tested this by comparing two lens of the same focal length, one with OSs and one without and see if OSs improves the already excellent ibis? Only a few OSs lens are supported like the 70-200mm gmii and 24-105mm.

I did a test with 85mm prime and 70-200mm gmii on my a7r5 and I can’t really see any improvement using the OSs lens. @85mm I can hit 1/4 secs where the hit rate starts to fall to like 50% or worse and using the OSs lens don’t help at all or is so minor that I need to use 1/8 sec on both lens to get decent hit rate, free standing. Bracing helps to allow me to hit 1/4 on both lens but I don’t see a difference between the two either.

You should do it with an A7RIV compared to A7RV, when using the 70200GM II

 

[Interceptor121]

Generally for focal length under 100mm lenses don’t have OSS exception the 90mm macro

Longer lenses have oss because the sensor shift can only go that far when the angle of view is small and smaller movement affect the frame more

looking at other brands the dual is adds one stop so it won’t be such a clear cut for photos

however for video with long lenses sony has historically advised to use standard instead of active steadyshot and now active in video has changed from cropping to coordinated IS which is something i would like to test with a long lens in video mysefl as I find this insufficient with my A1

with regards to the old model the sensor is locked on all axis except roll when the lens had oss and roll doesn’t really have a massive impact on still shots according to various sources except if you shake when you press the shutter

 

[alantan]

With the newer Sony bodies like a7r5 and a7cii Sony is claiming that oss and ibis can work in co-ordination.

https://support.d-imaging.sony.co.j...body and the,than would otherwise be possible.

has anyone tested this by comparing two lens of the same focal length, one with OSs and one without and see if OSs improves the already excellent ibis? Only a few OSs lens are supported like the 70-200mm gmii and 24-105mm.

I did a test with 85mm prime and 70-200mm gmii on my a7r5 and I can’t really see any improvement using the OSs lens. @85mm I can hit 1/4 secs where the hit rate starts to fall to like 50% or worse and using the OSs lens don’t help at all or is so minor that I need to use 1/8 sec on both lens to get decent hit rate, free standing. Bracing helps to allow me to hit 1/4 on both lens but I don’t see a difference between the two either.

You should do it with an A7RIV compared to A7RV, when using the 70200GM II

This no need to test. There is a big difference between a74 and a7r5. The ibis improvement is there and significant and reported many times.



my question is does having OSs in lens buy you anything? Important for people comparing non stabilised lens like 135mm or 35-150mm over the 70-200mm ?

 

[Interceptor121]

With the newer Sony bodies like a7r5 and a7cii Sony is claiming that oss and ibis can work in co-ordination.

https://support.d-imaging.sony.co.j...body and the,than would otherwise be possible.

has anyone tested this by comparing two lens of the same focal length, one with OSs and one without and see if OSs improves the already excellent ibis? Only a few OSs lens are supported like the 70-200mm gmii and 24-105mm.

I did a test with 85mm prime and 70-200mm gmii on my a7r5 and I can’t really see any improvement using the OSs lens. @85mm I can hit 1/4 secs where the hit rate starts to fall to like 50% or worse and using the OSs lens don’t help at all or is so minor that I need to use 1/8 sec on both lens to get decent hit rate, free standing. Bracing helps to allow me to hit 1/4 on both lens but I don’t see a difference between the two either.

You should do it with an A7RIV compared to A7RV, when using the 70200GM II

This no need to test. There is a big difference between a74 and a7r5. The ibis improvement is there and significant and reported many times.

my question is does having OSs in lens buy you anything? Important for people comparing non stabilised lens like 135mm or 35-150mm over the 70-200mm ?

For lenses longer than 100mm OSS in the lens is essential as the sensor in the camera can only shift that much

To further improve the effectivness of stabilisation Sony now also has this combined mode that will add perhaps another stop

The difference in the IBIS will be more apparent with your standard lenses which is where you need it the least

optyczne does some form of testing of this and concluded the improvement between the A7RIV and A7RV is actually minimal to none.

The A7IV scores a bit lower and the A1 half a stop lower being the worse of the lot (I can confirm the stabilisation is rather weak but 3 stops is ok anyway for short lenses)

To give an idea my MFT cameras measure around 4.5 stops

In general the specs on stabiliation appear to be long way from reality

in conclusion for long lenses OSS is a must and does most of the work the coordination with the sensor adds around one stop and generally the level of stabilisation you can get as you increase the focal length drops

 

[pollup]

With the newer Sony bodies like a7r5 and a7cii Sony is claiming that oss and ibis can work in co-ordination.

https://support.d-imaging.sony.co.j...body and the,than would otherwise be possible.

has anyone tested this by comparing two lens of the same focal length, one with OSs and one without and see if OSs improves the already excellent ibis? Only a few OSs lens are supported like the 70-200mm gmii and 24-105mm.

I did a test with 85mm prime and 70-200mm gmii on my a7r5 and I can’t really see any improvement using the OSs lens. @85mm I can hit 1/4 secs where the hit rate starts to fall to like 50% or worse and using the OSs lens don’t help at all or is so minor that I need to use 1/8 sec on both lens to get decent hit rate, free standing. Bracing helps to allow me to hit 1/4 on both lens but I don’t see a difference between the two either.

Sony cameras have, since IBIS was first introduced in the a7II, always touted that OSS + IBIS work together.

The devil is in the details.

Here is a marketing shot from when the first IBIS enabled body, the a7II was released:



Notice there is described that OSS lens provided only Pitch and Yaw stabilization axes and the body is capable of supplying the same axes plus an additional 3 axes, roll, x and y.

Now, pitch and yaw in the lens is only *better* than the IBIS version when the lens is 90mm or longer. This is why nearly all full frame lenses shorter than 90mm released after the a7II do not have OSS. The OSS is not helpful on top of IBIS in those cases. By contrast, nearly all lenses 90mm or longer released after the a7II continue to have OSS and it works in conjunction with IBIS enabled bodies.

So, in summary, nothing is new here.

No, it's new.

The old way was using "delegation", so the IBIS takes cares of roll/x/y and OSS takes cares of pitch and yaw. So they would work independently, leading to suboptimal results.

Now with the new cameras and specific lenses, the camera and lens can work in "coordinated mode", where the camera gets readings from both the lens and IBIS system, and then not only is the overall reading more precise than before, but also the camera can have both the lens and IBIS perform pitch adjustement for ex.

Imagine that with IBIS alone, it would take (random number) 0.1 sec to adjust, and same with the lens alone. In conjunction, when both can adjust the pitch at the same time, the same operation could be performed in 0.05 sec, leading to a 1 step performance increase. This is just one example.

Note that unlike Canon, the 8 step figure is given for IBIS alone (using the 50mm f1.2 GM lens). No figure was given for coordinated IS, so in theory it could exceed 8 steps.

 

[ahaslett]

With the newer Sony bodies like a7r5 and a7cii Sony is claiming that oss and ibis can work in co-ordination.

https://support.d-imaging.sony.co.j...body and the,than would otherwise be possible.

has anyone tested this by comparing two lens of the same focal length, one with OSs and one without and see if OSs improves the already excellent ibis? Only a few OSs lens are supported like the 70-200mm gmii and 24-105mm.

I did a test with 85mm prime and 70-200mm gmii on my a7r5 and I can’t really see any improvement using the OSs lens. @85mm I can hit 1/4 secs where the hit rate starts to fall to like 50% or worse and using the OSs lens don’t help at all or is so minor that I need to use 1/8 sec on both lens to get decent hit rate, free standing. Bracing helps to allow me to hit 1/4 on both lens but I don’t see a difference between the two either.

Sony cameras have, since IBIS was first introduced in the a7II, always touted that OSS + IBIS work together.

The devil is in the details.

Here is a marketing shot from when the first IBIS enabled body, the a7II was released:



Notice there is described that OSS lens provided only Pitch and Yaw stabilization axes and the body is capable of supplying the same axes plus an additional 3 axes, roll, x and y.

Now, pitch and yaw in the lens is only *better* than the IBIS version when the lens is 90mm or longer. This is why nearly all full frame lenses shorter than 90mm released after the a7II do not have OSS. The OSS is not helpful on top of IBIS in those cases. By contrast, nearly all lenses 90mm or longer released after the a7II continue to have OSS and it works in conjunction with IBIS enabled bodies.

So, in summary, nothing is new here.

No, it's new.

The old way was using "delegation", so the IBIS takes cares of roll/x/y and OSS takes cares of pitch and yaw. So they would work independently, leading to suboptimal results.

Now with the new cameras and specific lenses, the camera and lens can work in "coordinated mode", where the camera gets readings from both the lens and IBIS system, and then not only is the overall reading more precise than before, but also the camera can have both the lens and IBIS perform pitch adjustement for ex.

Imagine that with IBIS alone, it would take (random number) 0.1 sec to adjust, and same with the lens alone. In conjunction, when both can adjust the pitch at the same time, the same operation could be performed in 0.05 sec, leading to a 1 step performance increase. This is just one example.

Note that unlike Canon, the 8 step figure is given for IBIS alone (using the 50mm f1.2 GM lens). No figure was given for coordinated IS, so in theory it could exceed 8 steps.

Olympus/OMDS have the same. 300mm has full Dual IS, 100-400mm has split duties between body and lens. Olympus rely on IBIS out to 150mm (MFT), apart from the 12-100/4, which has full Dual IS. Olympus IBIS is very good, Dual IS on the 300/4 is magic.

Andrew

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

 

[alantan]

With the newer Sony bodies like a7r5 and a7cii Sony is claiming that oss and ibis can work in co-ordination.

https://support.d-imaging.sony.co.j...body and the,than would otherwise be possible.

has anyone tested this by comparing two lens of the same focal length, one with OSs and one without and see if OSs improves the already excellent ibis? Only a few OSs lens are supported like the 70-200mm gmii and 24-105mm.

I did a test with 85mm prime and 70-200mm gmii on my a7r5 and I can’t really see any improvement using the OSs lens. @85mm I can hit 1/4 secs where the hit rate starts to fall to like 50% or worse and using the OSs lens don’t help at all or is so minor that I need to use 1/8 sec on both lens to get decent hit rate, free standing. Bracing helps to allow me to hit 1/4 on both lens but I don’t see a difference between the two either.

Sony cameras have, since IBIS was first introduced in the a7II, always touted that OSS + IBIS work together.

The devil is in the details.

Here is a marketing shot from when the first IBIS enabled body, the a7II was released:



Notice there is described that OSS lens provided only Pitch and Yaw stabilization axes and the body is capable of supplying the same axes plus an additional 3 axes, roll, x and y.

Now, pitch and yaw in the lens is only *better* than the IBIS version when the lens is 90mm or longer. This is why nearly all full frame lenses shorter than 90mm released after the a7II do not have OSS. The OSS is not helpful on top of IBIS in those cases. By contrast, nearly all lenses 90mm or longer released after the a7II continue to have OSS and it works in conjunction with IBIS enabled bodies.

So, in summary, nothing is new here.

No, it's new.

The old way was using "delegation", so the IBIS takes cares of roll/x/y and OSS takes cares of pitch and yaw. So they would work independently, leading to suboptimal results.

Now with the new cameras and specific lenses, the camera and lens can work in "coordinated mode", where the camera gets readings from both the lens and IBIS system, and then not only is the overall reading more precise than before, but also the camera can have both the lens and IBIS perform pitch adjustement for ex.

Imagine that with IBIS alone, it would take (random number) 0.1 sec to adjust, and same with the lens alone. In conjunction, when both can adjust the pitch at the same time, the same operation could be performed in 0.05 sec, leading to a 1 step performance increase. This is just one example.

Note that unlike Canon, the 8 step figure is given for IBIS alone (using the 50mm f1.2 GM lens). No figure was given for coordinated IS, so in theory it could exceed 8 steps.

Yes, in theory…. I got both the 70-200mm gmii and a7r5 hoping to see the OSs helping a lot… but I don’t see any adv in adding the OSs for 85mm.

--
my pics

 

[Hotel Lonely]

With the newer Sony bodies like a7r5 and a7cii Sony is claiming that oss and ibis can work in co-ordination.

https://support.d-imaging.sony.co.j...body and the,than would otherwise be possible.

has anyone tested this by comparing two lens of the same focal length, one with OSs and one without and see if OSs improves the already excellent ibis? Only a few OSs lens are supported like the 70-200mm gmii and 24-105mm.

I did a test with 85mm prime and 70-200mm gmii on my a7r5 and I can’t really see any improvement using the OSs lens. @85mm I can hit 1/4 secs where the hit rate starts to fall to like 50% or worse and using the OSs lens don’t help at all or is so minor that I need to use 1/8 sec on both lens to get decent hit rate, free standing. Bracing helps to allow me to hit 1/4 on both lens but I don’t see a difference between the two either.

Sony cameras have, since IBIS was first introduced in the a7II, always touted that OSS + IBIS work together.

The devil is in the details.

Here is a marketing shot from when the first IBIS enabled body, the a7II was released:



Notice there is described that OSS lens provided only Pitch and Yaw stabilization axes and the body is capable of supplying the same axes plus an additional 3 axes, roll, x and y.

Now, pitch and yaw in the lens is only *better* than the IBIS version when the lens is 90mm or longer. This is why nearly all full frame lenses shorter than 90mm released after the a7II do not have OSS. The OSS is not helpful on top of IBIS in those cases. By contrast, nearly all lenses 90mm or longer released after the a7II continue to have OSS and it works in conjunction with IBIS enabled bodies.

So, in summary, nothing is new here.

No, it's new.

The old way was using "delegation", so the IBIS takes cares of roll/x/y and OSS takes cares of pitch and yaw. So they would work independently, leading to suboptimal results.

Now with the new cameras and specific lenses, the camera and lens can work in "coordinated mode", where the camera gets readings from both the lens and IBIS system, and then not only is the overall reading more precise than before, but also the camera can have both the lens and IBIS perform pitch adjustement for ex.

Imagine that with IBIS alone, it would take (random number) 0.1 sec to adjust, and same with the lens alone. In conjunction, when both can adjust the pitch at the same time, the same operation could be performed in 0.05 sec, leading to a 1 step performance increase. This is just one example.

Note that unlike Canon, the 8 step figure is given for IBIS alone (using the 50mm f1.2 GM lens). No figure was given for coordinated IS, so in theory it could exceed 8 steps.

Canon also announced an 8 stops IBIS when using 85 1.2L, which lacks OSS. It's just not that publicly known as they only published it on some of their press articles. In fact I was only recently informed of that lol

 

[Hotel Lonely]

With the newer Sony bodies like a7r5 and a7cii Sony is claiming that oss and ibis can work in co-ordination.

https://support.d-imaging.sony.co.j...body and the,than would otherwise be possible.

has anyone tested this by comparing two lens of the same focal length, one with OSs and one without and see if OSs improves the already excellent ibis? Only a few OSs lens are supported like the 70-200mm gmii and 24-105mm.

I did a test with 85mm prime and 70-200mm gmii on my a7r5 and I can’t really see any improvement using the OSs lens. @85mm I can hit 1/4 secs where the hit rate starts to fall to like 50% or worse and using the OSs lens don’t help at all or is so minor that I need to use 1/8 sec on both lens to get decent hit rate, free standing. Bracing helps to allow me to hit 1/4 on both lens but I don’t see a difference between the two either.

Sony cameras have, since IBIS was first introduced in the a7II, always touted that OSS + IBIS work together.

The devil is in the details.

Here is a marketing shot from when the first IBIS enabled body, the a7II was released:



Notice there is described that OSS lens provided only Pitch and Yaw stabilization axes and the body is capable of supplying the same axes plus an additional 3 axes, roll, x and y.

Now, pitch and yaw in the lens is only *better* than the IBIS version when the lens is 90mm or longer. This is why nearly all full frame lenses shorter than 90mm released after the a7II do not have OSS. The OSS is not helpful on top of IBIS in those cases. By contrast, nearly all lenses 90mm or longer released after the a7II continue to have OSS and it works in conjunction with IBIS enabled bodies.

So, in summary, nothing is new here.

No, it's new.

The old way was using "delegation", so the IBIS takes cares of roll/x/y and OSS takes cares of pitch and yaw. So they would work independently, leading to suboptimal results.

Now with the new cameras and specific lenses, the camera and lens can work in "coordinated mode", where the camera gets readings from both the lens and IBIS system, and then not only is the overall reading more precise than before, but also the camera can have both the lens and IBIS perform pitch adjustement for ex.

Imagine that with IBIS alone, it would take (random number) 0.1 sec to adjust, and same with the lens alone. In conjunction, when both can adjust the pitch at the same time, the same operation could be performed in 0.05 sec, leading to a 1 step performance increase. This is just one example.

Note that unlike Canon, the 8 step figure is given for IBIS alone (using the 50mm f1.2 GM lens). No figure was given for coordinated IS, so in theory it could exceed 8 steps.

Yes, in theory…. I got both the 70-200mm gmii and a7r5 hoping to see the OSs helping a lot… but I don’t see any adv in adding the OSs for 85mm.

Again，at 85mm, it doesn't show any difference. However if you've ever tried something like 400 or 200 without OSS, you would be shocked at how much the OSS can help, better than having IBIS alone. I once used a 480mm telescope (without OSS) and the difference between the telescope and the 200-600G on stabilisation is huge.

 

[Interceptor121]

With the newer Sony bodies like a7r5 and a7cii Sony is claiming that oss and ibis can work in co-ordination.

https://support.d-imaging.sony.co.j...body and the,than would otherwise be possible.

has anyone tested this by comparing two lens of the same focal length, one with OSs and one without and see if OSs improves the already excellent ibis? Only a few OSs lens are supported like the 70-200mm gmii and 24-105mm.

I did a test with 85mm prime and 70-200mm gmii on my a7r5 and I can’t really see any improvement using the OSs lens. @85mm I can hit 1/4 secs where the hit rate starts to fall to like 50% or worse and using the OSs lens don’t help at all or is so minor that I need to use 1/8 sec on both lens to get decent hit rate, free standing. Bracing helps to allow me to hit 1/4 on both lens but I don’t see a difference between the two either.

Sony cameras have, since IBIS was first introduced in the a7II, always touted that OSS + IBIS work together.

The devil is in the details.

Here is a marketing shot from when the first IBIS enabled body, the a7II was released:



Notice there is described that OSS lens provided only Pitch and Yaw stabilization axes and the body is capable of supplying the same axes plus an additional 3 axes, roll, x and y.

Now, pitch and yaw in the lens is only *better* than the IBIS version when the lens is 90mm or longer. This is why nearly all full frame lenses shorter than 90mm released after the a7II do not have OSS. The OSS is not helpful on top of IBIS in those cases. By contrast, nearly all lenses 90mm or longer released after the a7II continue to have OSS and it works in conjunction with IBIS enabled bodies.

So, in summary, nothing is new here.

No, it's new.

The old way was using "delegation", so the IBIS takes cares of roll/x/y and OSS takes cares of pitch and yaw. So they would work independently, leading to suboptimal results.

Now with the new cameras and specific lenses, the camera and lens can work in "coordinated mode", where the camera gets readings from both the lens and IBIS system, and then not only is the overall reading more precise than before, but also the camera can have both the lens and IBIS perform pitch adjustement for ex.

Imagine that with IBIS alone, it would take (random number) 0.1 sec to adjust, and same with the lens alone. In conjunction, when both can adjust the pitch at the same time, the same operation could be performed in 0.05 sec, leading to a 1 step performance increase. This is just one example.

Note that unlike Canon, the 8 step figure is given for IBIS alone (using the 50mm f1.2 GM lens). No figure was given for coordinated IS, so in theory it could exceed 8 steps.

Canon also announced an 8 stops IBIS when using 85 1.2L, which lacks OSS. It's just not that publicly known as they only published it on some of their press articles. In fact I was only recently informed of that lol

8 stops is total marketing hype

When you get 5 is a miracle with any system

--
instagram http://instagram.com/interceptor121
My flickr sets http://www.flickr.com/photos/interceptor121/
Youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/interceptor121
Underwater Photo and Video Blog http://interceptor121.com
Deer Photography workshops https://interceptor121.com/2021/09/26/2021-22-deer-photography-workshops-in-woburn/
If you want to get in touch don't send me a PM rather contact me directly at my website/social media

 

[dcstep]

With the 600mm GM, hand held on an a1, switching the OSS off and on is like night and day. You see the difference in the EVF very clearly.

 

[Hotel Lonely]

With the newer Sony bodies like a7r5 and a7cii Sony is claiming that oss and ibis can work in co-ordination.

https://support.d-imaging.sony.co.j...body and the,than would otherwise be possible.

has anyone tested this by comparing two lens of the same focal length, one with OSs and one without and see if OSs improves the already excellent ibis? Only a few OSs lens are supported like the 70-200mm gmii and 24-105mm.

I did a test with 85mm prime and 70-200mm gmii on my a7r5 and I can’t really see any improvement using the OSs lens. @85mm I can hit 1/4 secs where the hit rate starts to fall to like 50% or worse and using the OSs lens don’t help at all or is so minor that I need to use 1/8 sec on both lens to get decent hit rate, free standing. Bracing helps to allow me to hit 1/4 on both lens but I don’t see a difference between the two either.

Sony cameras have, since IBIS was first introduced in the a7II, always touted that OSS + IBIS work together.

The devil is in the details.

Here is a marketing shot from when the first IBIS enabled body, the a7II was released:



Notice there is described that OSS lens provided only Pitch and Yaw stabilization axes and the body is capable of supplying the same axes plus an additional 3 axes, roll, x and y.

Now, pitch and yaw in the lens is only *better* than the IBIS version when the lens is 90mm or longer. This is why nearly all full frame lenses shorter than 90mm released after the a7II do not have OSS. The OSS is not helpful on top of IBIS in those cases. By contrast, nearly all lenses 90mm or longer released after the a7II continue to have OSS and it works in conjunction with IBIS enabled bodies.

So, in summary, nothing is new here.

No, it's new.

The old way was using "delegation", so the IBIS takes cares of roll/x/y and OSS takes cares of pitch and yaw. So they would work independently, leading to suboptimal results.

Now with the new cameras and specific lenses, the camera and lens can work in "coordinated mode", where the camera gets readings from both the lens and IBIS system, and then not only is the overall reading more precise than before, but also the camera can have both the lens and IBIS perform pitch adjustement for ex.

Imagine that with IBIS alone, it would take (random number) 0.1 sec to adjust, and same with the lens alone. In conjunction, when both can adjust the pitch at the same time, the same operation could be performed in 0.05 sec, leading to a 1 step performance increase. This is just one example.

Note that unlike Canon, the 8 step figure is given for IBIS alone (using the 50mm f1.2 GM lens). No figure was given for coordinated IS, so in theory it could exceed 8 steps.

Canon also announced an 8 stops IBIS when using 85 1.2L, which lacks OSS. It's just not that publicly known as they only published it on some of their press articles. In fact I was only recently informed of that lol

8 stops is total marketing hype

When you get 5 is a miracle with any system

People don't have to educate everyone about 1+1=2. It's just a way of comparing stabilisation effectiveness across different brands using same standards. Canon and Sony's claims are same, and that's all it's about.

 

[Hotel Lonely]

With the 600mm GM, hand held on an a1, switching the OSS off and on is like night and day. You see the difference in the EVF very clearly.

On Sony cameras if you switch off OSS, you switch off IBIS as well... There's no way to compare if a lens can operate better on IBIS or OSS alone.

 

[alantan]

With the newer Sony bodies like a7r5 and a7cii Sony is claiming that oss and ibis can work in co-ordination.

https://support.d-imaging.sony.co.j...body and the,than would otherwise be possible.

has anyone tested this by comparing two lens of the same focal length, one with OSs and one without and see if OSs improves the already excellent ibis? Only a few OSs lens are supported like the 70-200mm gmii and 24-105mm.

I did a test with 85mm prime and 70-200mm gmii on my a7r5 and I can’t really see any improvement using the OSs lens. @85mm I can hit 1/4 secs where the hit rate starts to fall to like 50% or worse and using the OSs lens don’t help at all or is so minor that I need to use 1/8 sec on both lens to get decent hit rate, free standing. Bracing helps to allow me to hit 1/4 on both lens but I don’t see a difference between the two either.

Sony cameras have, since IBIS was first introduced in the a7II, always touted that OSS + IBIS work together.

The devil is in the details.

Here is a marketing shot from when the first IBIS enabled body, the a7II was released:



Notice there is described that OSS lens provided only Pitch and Yaw stabilization axes and the body is capable of supplying the same axes plus an additional 3 axes, roll, x and y.

Now, pitch and yaw in the lens is only *better* than the IBIS version when the lens is 90mm or longer. This is why nearly all full frame lenses shorter than 90mm released after the a7II do not have OSS. The OSS is not helpful on top of IBIS in those cases. By contrast, nearly all lenses 90mm or longer released after the a7II continue to have OSS and it works in conjunction with IBIS enabled bodies.

So, in summary, nothing is new here.

No, it's new.

The old way was using "delegation", so the IBIS takes cares of roll/x/y and OSS takes cares of pitch and yaw. So they would work independently, leading to suboptimal results.

Now with the new cameras and specific lenses, the camera and lens can work in "coordinated mode", where the camera gets readings from both the lens and IBIS system, and then not only is the overall reading more precise than before, but also the camera can have both the lens and IBIS perform pitch adjustement for ex.

Imagine that with IBIS alone, it would take (random number) 0.1 sec to adjust, and same with the lens alone. In conjunction, when both can adjust the pitch at the same time, the same operation could be performed in 0.05 sec, leading to a 1 step performance increase. This is just one example.

Note that unlike Canon, the 8 step figure is given for IBIS alone (using the 50mm f1.2 GM lens). No figure was given for coordinated IS, so in theory it could exceed 8 steps.

Yes, in theory…. I got both the 70-200mm gmii and a7r5 hoping to see the OSs helping a lot… but I don’t see any adv in adding the OSs for 85mm.

Again，at 85mm, it doesn't show any difference. However if you've ever tried something like 400 or 200 without OSS, you would be shocked at how much the OSS can help, better than having IBIS alone. I once used a 480mm telescope (without OSS) and the difference between the telescope and the 200-600G on stabilisation is huge.

I have tested 135mm on the a74 though. There is not much difference either. Someone in fredmiranda forum tested 150mm and found no difference either between a native 35-150mm and 100-400mm gm.

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1805953/1#16358105

I will never use extreme telephoto lens so I don’t care 400mm length. Besides, is the ibis even working correctly with the telescope lens 480? I assume that is a non-native lens. I do care how much the OSS on my 70-200mm in the 70-150mm range where I shoot very often. A lot of people use that focal range I feel.

--
my pics

 

[alantan]

With the 600mm GM, hand held on an a1, switching the OSS off and on is like night and day. You see the difference in the EVF very clearly.

On Sony cameras if you switch off OSS, you switch off IBIS as well... There's no way to compare if a lens can operate better on IBIS or OSS alone.

You can test if u have a non-stabilised lens of similar focal length.

 

[Hotel Lonely]

With the 600mm GM, hand held on an a1, switching the OSS off and on is like night and day. You see the difference in the EVF very clearly.

On Sony cameras if you switch off OSS, you switch off IBIS as well... There's no way to compare if a lens can operate better on IBIS or OSS alone.

You can test if u have a non-stabilised lens of similar focal length.

That's exactly what I did, on my 100mm non-stabilised vs 100mm at 100-400gm, when using slower shutter speeds like 0.5s

 

[dcstep]

With the 600mm GM, hand held on an a1, switching the OSS off and on is like night and day. You see the difference in the EVF very clearly.

On Sony cameras if you switch off OSS, you switch off IBIS as well... There's no way to compare if a lens can operate better on IBIS or OSS alone.

You can test if u have a non-stabilised lens of similar focal length.

Don't know of a 600mm lens without stabilization.