OM-3 stabilization, is the stabilization overhyped or is something wrong?

[SimonV]

I've been reading for years about how the Olympus / OM System cameras supposedly have this ungodly IBIS, and how with the newer models you can get long exposures of several seconds, many reviewers claim this as well. I just got the OM-3 and I can't even get one second handheld without visible camera shake. I'm using the Leica 12-60 and the 75mm 1.8 (which obviously doesn't have IS, but neither is the 12-60 able to use OIS together with the camera body). At 12mm, I can get some semblance of stability, but nothing that I didn't with other cameras or something like the Fuji X100VI.

Is the IBIS really that good compared to other cameras, or is it just good but overhyped for some reason? Or am I doing something wrong? Does it require lens IS in conjunction with IBIS to work well? I've tried with lens IS on and off, with the different S-IS modes, with IS priority on, and Lens I.S. Priority on and off. Nothing seems to have a significant impact. 1 second exposures are possible maybe only 10% of the time, and even then they're not perfectly sharp.

For reference, I can get a 1 second exposure perfectly sharp, and without much effort, with the A7RV and 70-200 GM II at 200mm, but not with the Leica 12-60 at 40mm or even lower (nor the 75mm 1.8). Yes, the Sony's rated at 8 stops vs the 6.5 of the OM-3 and the 70-200 is easier to hold steady (and it's got IS), but still, since the reviews state several seconds, I'm confused that even 1 second seems almost impossible when I try my hardest. Many shots I took at 1/20 or 1/10 came out blurry as well, even though I didn't shoot from the hip but deliberately. The IS does seem to do something though and I can hear the buzzing from the body when I use it, and with the IS off it's even worse, but this just seems like any IS from the last 5-10 years or so at best and nothing close to the hype I've been hearing. I was looking forward to mitigating the low light restrictions of the MFT format with longer shutter times, but if it's not better than this, the OM-3 is heading back.

 

[Sam Bennett]

I've been reading for years about how the Olympus / OM System cameras supposedly have this ungodly IBIS, and how with the newer models you can get long exposures of several seconds, many reviewers claim this as well. I just got the OM-3 and I can't even get one second handheld without visible camera shake. I'm using the Leica 12-60 and the 75mm 1.8 (which obviously doesn't have IS, but neither is the 12-60 able to use OIS together with the camera body). At 12mm, I can get some semblance of stability, but nothing that I didn't with other cameras or something like the Fuji X100VI.

Is the IBIS really that good compared to other cameras, or is it just good but overhyped for some reason? Or am I doing something wrong? Does it require lens IS in conjunction with IBIS to work well? I've tried with lens IS on and off, with the different S-IS modes, with IS priority on, and Lens I.S. Priority on and off. Nothing seems to have a significant impact. 1 second exposures are possible maybe only 10% of the time, and even then they're not perfectly sharp.

For reference, I can get a 1 second exposure perfectly sharp, and without much effort, with the A7RV and 70-200 GM II at 200mm, but not with the Leica 12-60 at 40mm or even lower (nor the 75mm 1.8). Yes, the Sony's rated at 8 stops vs the 6.5 of the OM-3 and the 70-200 is easier to hold steady (and it's got IS), but still, since the reviews state several seconds, I'm confused that even 1 second seems almost impossible when I try my hardest. Many shots I took at 1/20 or 1/10 came out blurry as well, even though I didn't shoot from the hip but deliberately. The IS does seem to do something though and I can hear the buzzing from the body when I use it, and with the IS off it's even worse, but this just seems like any IS from the last 5-10 years or so at best and nothing close to the hype I've been hearing. I was looking forward to mitigating the low light restrictions of the MFT format with longer shutter times, but if it's not better than this, the OM-3 is heading back.

I've been wondering this myself, since I feel like I'm getting more handshake that I'm used to with the OM-1 Mark II. On the one hand, this is expected is the OM-3 is a stop less effective on paper. When I've tested in a semi-controlled situation this seems to track - in a high magnification situation where I can easily hand hold 1/60th with the OM-1, I have to use 1/125th to get the same result with the OM-3.

That said, I recently got the 9mm f/8 Lens Cap lens and have been surprised that I seem to be experiencing handshake on this as well, which has been asking the same question you have above.

Unfortunately, I don't have any good answers for you right now - but now that I know someone else out there is questioning this, I'll try to do some more tests to see what I find.

 

[ahaslett]

The IBIS in the OM3 is rated a bit below the OM1 mk i which is a bit below the OM1 mk ii. It is the same rating as the OM5. I have the OM5 and OM1 mk i.

I find that using the IS Assist display on the OM1 has improved my handholding technique when using the OM1 gradually over a few months.

I can certainly reliably shoot the OM5 standing up unbraced at >1s at 12mm. At 150mm it seems to roughly correspond to that improvement over 1/2xFL, allowing for the focal length difference. I’ve seen images posted from the OM1 mk i at around 12mm and 3s, but I can’t do that at my age.

If you can’t do at least 1s with the OM3 at 12mm, something is wrong. You could get an extra stop by moving to an OM1 mk ii.

The A7Rvis rated the same as an OM1 mk i and the A7CR a little behind the OM5/OM3. I find the A7CR is way behind my OM5 in my hands.

TLR I think your OM3 is faulty.

Andrew

 

[HicHic]

The A7Rvis rated the same as an OM1 mk i and the A7CR a little behind the OM5/OM3. I find the A7CR is way behind my OM5 in my hands.

TLR I think your OM3 is faulty.

Andrew

OP has A7RV. The RV IBIS is way better than your RIV and CR. I actually feel the A7RV has at least as good IBIS as OM-1, if not better. You should try it yourself and see.

 

[ahaslett]

The A7Rvis rated the same as an OM1 mk i and the A7CR a little behind the OM5/OM3. I find the A7CR is way behind my OM5 in my hands.

TLR I think your OM3 is faulty.

Andrew

OP has A7RV. The RV IBIS is way better than your RIV and CR. I actually feel the A7RV has at least as good IBIS as OM-1, if not better. You should try it yourself and see.

I seem to have lost a space between v and “is”. In the part you cropped out, I gave the specs. Those support your statement. I’m not interested in an A7Rv.

Andrew

 

[HicHic]

The A7Rvis rated the same as an OM1 mk i and the A7CR a little behind the OM5/OM3. I find the A7CR is way behind my OM5 in my hands.

TLR I think your OM3 is faulty.

Andrew

OP has A7RV. The RV IBIS is way better than your RIV and CR. I actually feel the A7RV has at least as good IBIS as OM-1, if not better. You should try it yourself and see.

I seem to have lost a space between v and “is”. In the part you cropped out, I gave the specs. Those support your statement. I’m not interested in an A7Rv.

Andrew

Oh yeah I read the no space as RIV. Sometimes the rated IBIS specs are not accurate (eg - A7III's "5 stops" is nothing like GH5's "5 stops"). But in the case of A7RV, it really is astonishingly good. I don't know what the rating is for that camera, I just judge it by its performance when I used it to compare with OM-1. I think it's at LEAST equal, or has a slight edge (I'm leaning on the latter).

OP going from the RV to OM-3 would certainly feel a drop in IBIS performance.

 

[ahaslett]

The A7Rvis rated the same as an OM1 mk i and the A7CR a little behind the OM5/OM3. I find the A7CR is way behind my OM5 in my hands.

TLR I think your OM3 is faulty.

Andrew

OP has A7RV. The RV IBIS is way better than your RIV and CR. I actually feel the A7RV has at least as good IBIS as OM-1, if not better. You should try it yourself and see.

I seem to have lost a space between v and “is”. In the part you cropped out, I gave the specs. Those support your statement. I’m not interested in an A7Rv.

Andrew

Oh yeah I read the no space as RIV. Sometimes the rated IBIS specs are not accurate (eg - A7III's "5 stops" is nothing like GH5's "5 stops"). But in the case of A7RV, it really is astonishingly good. I don't know what the rating is for that camera, I just judge it by its performance when I used it to compare with OM-1. I think it's at LEAST equal, or has a slight edge (I'm leaning on the latter).

OP going from the RV to OM-3 would certainly feel a drop in IBIS performance.

If your OM1 is a mk I, the specs are bang on.

If the specs for the OM3 and OM5 are right, not being able to hold the OM3 for >1s at 12mm is not right.

A

--
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

 

[HicHic]

I've been reading for years about how the Olympus / OM System cameras supposedly have this ungodly IBIS

For years, they were certainly leading the charge with Panasonic. That's old news. Others have caught up, big time. Especially since you're using A7RV, going to OM-3 is actually a noticeable downgrade in terms of IBIS performance.

What used to be inherent M43 advantages are being eroded away everyday. IBIS performance, pre-capture feature, pixel shift feature, higher burst rates, rolling shutter performance, size/weight...etc - these all used to be things that were inherent advantages for M43 - now they are commonplace in other cameras across manufacturers.

Next target on the list? Handheld high resolution modes and other computational features.

 

[Skeeterbytes]

I've been reading for years about how the Olympus / OM System cameras supposedly have this ungodly IBIS, and how with the newer models you can get long exposures of several seconds, many reviewers claim this as well. I just got the OM-3 and I can't even get one second handheld without visible camera shake. I'm using the Leica 12-60 and the 75mm 1.8 (which obviously doesn't have IS, but neither is the 12-60 able to use OIS together with the camera body). At 12mm, I can get some semblance of stability, but nothing that I didn't with other cameras or something like the Fuji X100VI.

Is the IBIS really that good compared to other cameras, or is it just good but overhyped for some reason? Or am I doing something wrong? Does it require lens IS in conjunction with IBIS to work well? I've tried with lens IS on and off, with the different S-IS modes, with IS priority on, and Lens I.S. Priority on and off. Nothing seems to have a significant impact. 1 second exposures are possible maybe only 10% of the time, and even then they're not perfectly sharp.

For reference, I can get a 1 second exposure perfectly sharp, and without much effort, with the A7RV and 70-200 GM II at 200mm, but not with the Leica 12-60 at 40mm or even lower (nor the 75mm 1.8). Yes, the Sony's rated at 8 stops vs the 6.5 of the OM-3 and the 70-200 is easier to hold steady (and it's got IS), but still, since the reviews state several seconds, I'm confused that even 1 second seems almost impossible when I try my hardest. Many shots I took at 1/20 or 1/10 came out blurry as well, even though I didn't shoot from the hip but deliberately. The IS does seem to do something though and I can hear the buzzing from the body when I use it, and with the IS off it's even worse, but this just seems like any IS from the last 5-10 years or so at best and nothing close to the hype I've been hearing. I was looking forward to mitigating the low light restrictions of the MFT format with longer shutter times, but if it's not better than this, the OM-3 is heading back.

Can you post samples with exif? Soft images have many, many causes, sometimes more than one in a single file.

Cheers,

Rick

 

[HicHic]

If your OM1 is a mk I, the specs are bang on.

If the specs for the OM3 and OM5 are right, not being able to hold the OM3 for >1s at 12mm is not right.

A

Yeah I have the OM-1i. Haven't tried OM-3 so I don't know.

 

[Sam Bennett]

I've been reading for years about how the Olympus / OM System cameras supposedly have this ungodly IBIS, and how with the newer models you can get long exposures of several seconds, many reviewers claim this as well. I just got the OM-3 and I can't even get one second handheld without visible camera shake. I'm using the Leica 12-60 and the 75mm 1.8 (which obviously doesn't have IS, but neither is the 12-60 able to use OIS together with the camera body). At 12mm, I can get some semblance of stability, but nothing that I didn't with other cameras or something like the Fuji X100VI.

Is the IBIS really that good compared to other cameras, or is it just good but overhyped for some reason? Or am I doing something wrong? Does it require lens IS in conjunction with IBIS to work well? I've tried with lens IS on and off, with the different S-IS modes, with IS priority on, and Lens I.S. Priority on and off. Nothing seems to have a significant impact. 1 second exposures are possible maybe only 10% of the time, and even then they're not perfectly sharp.

For reference, I can get a 1 second exposure perfectly sharp, and without much effort, with the A7RV and 70-200 GM II at 200mm, but not with the Leica 12-60 at 40mm or even lower (nor the 75mm 1.8). Yes, the Sony's rated at 8 stops vs the 6.5 of the OM-3 and the 70-200 is easier to hold steady (and it's got IS), but still, since the reviews state several seconds, I'm confused that even 1 second seems almost impossible when I try my hardest. Many shots I took at 1/20 or 1/10 came out blurry as well, even though I didn't shoot from the hip but deliberately. The IS does seem to do something though and I can hear the buzzing from the body when I use it, and with the IS off it's even worse, but this just seems like any IS from the last 5-10 years or so at best and nothing close to the hype I've been hearing. I was looking forward to mitigating the low light restrictions of the MFT format with longer shutter times, but if it's not better than this, the OM-3 is heading back.

I've been wondering this myself, since I feel like I'm getting more handshake that I'm used to with the OM-1 Mark II. On the one hand, this is expected is the OM-3 is a stop less effective on paper. When I've tested in a semi-controlled situation this seems to track - in a high magnification situation where I can easily hand hold 1/60th with the OM-1, I have to use 1/125th to get the same result with the OM-3.

That said, I recently got the 9mm f/8 Lens Cap lens and have been surprised that I seem to be experiencing handshake on this as well, which has been asking the same question you have above.

Unfortunately, I don't have any good answers for you right now - but now that I know someone else out there is questioning this, I'll try to do some more tests to see what I find.

As I've been investigating this, one of the things I've done is turn on "Camera 1 -> 8. Image Stabilizer -> Multi-Shot Image Stabilizer -> IS Priority" on, which prevents the camera from firing if it's not confident in the IS functioning. This is to make sure that the images I'm evaluating were deemed by the camera to be sufficiently stable. Since doing that I've noticed that I do run into situations more often than I would expect where the camera won't fire. Releasing the shutter and re-half-pressing rectifies this, often requiring you to recompose.

So, the unknown thing for me right now (and why I haven't shared this, yet) is whether it's common for this to happen on the OM-1 Mark II as well (where I haven't historically used this).

Is it a camera issue? Is it a me issue? Is it a non-issue? Not really sure, but if others are playing around trying to understand the system and its potential shortcomings that may be a place to explore.

 

[martinhb]

From what's been said something is seriously wrong.

One or two example photos would help assess what is going on.

Here are two handheld images taken with an E-M1 Mark II.

One with the M.Zuiko 12-40mm F/2.8 Pro & the other using the Olympus M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 II.

Neither have IS.

Being over 70 I find IBIS necessary.

at 200mm 2.5 seconds





At 35mm 4 seconds

 

[HicHic]

It is best if OP provides a photo.

 

[martinhb]

It is best if OP provides a photo.

Hopefully, with exif data .......

 

[ahaslett]

It is best if OP provides a photo.

Hopefully, with exif data .......

If the OM3 matches the OM5, even I should be able to do this, probably a bit better with the IS Assist display.




Birmingham Cathedral

A

--
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

 

[Asherax]

I've been reading for years about how the Olympus / OM System cameras supposedly have this ungodly IBIS, and how with the newer models you can get long exposures of several seconds, many reviewers claim this as well. I just got the OM-3 and I can't even get one second handheld without visible camera shake. I'm using the Leica 12-60 and the 75mm 1.8 (which obviously doesn't have IS, but neither is the 12-60 able to use OIS together with the camera body). At 12mm, I can get some semblance of stability, but nothing that I didn't with other cameras or something like the Fuji X100VI.

Is the IBIS really that good compared to other cameras, or is it just good but overhyped for some reason? Or am I doing something wrong? Does it require lens IS in conjunction with IBIS to work well? I've tried with lens IS on and off, with the different S-IS modes, with IS priority on, and Lens I.S. Priority on and off. Nothing seems to have a significant impact. 1 second exposures are possible maybe only 10% of the time, and even then they're not perfectly sharp.

For reference, I can get a 1 second exposure perfectly sharp, and without much effort, with the A7RV and 70-200 GM II at 200mm, but not with the Leica 12-60 at 40mm or even lower (nor the 75mm 1.8). Yes, the Sony's rated at 8 stops vs the 6.5 of the OM-3 and the 70-200 is easier to hold steady (and it's got IS), but still, since the reviews state several seconds, I'm confused that even 1 second seems almost impossible when I try my hardest. Many shots I took at 1/20 or 1/10 came out blurry as well, even though I didn't shoot from the hip but deliberately. The IS does seem to do something though and I can hear the buzzing from the body when I use it, and with the IS off it's even worse, but this just seems like any IS from the last 5-10 years or so at best and nothing close to the hype I've been hearing. I was looking forward to mitigating the low light restrictions of the MFT format with longer shutter times, but if it's not better than this, the OM-3 is heading back.

I've been wondering this myself, since I feel like I'm getting more handshake that I'm used to with the OM-1 Mark II. On the one hand, this is expected is the OM-3 is a stop less effective on paper. When I've tested in a semi-controlled situation this seems to track - in a high magnification situation where I can easily hand hold 1/60th with the OM-1, I have to use 1/125th to get the same result with the OM-3.

That said, I recently got the 9mm f/8 Lens Cap lens and have been surprised that I seem to be experiencing handshake on this as well, which has been asking the same question you have above.

Unfortunately, I don't have any good answers for you right now - but now that I know someone else out there is questioning this, I'll try to do some more tests to see what I find.

I don't have either Camera, but I do have some of the lenses. As for manual focus lenses like the 9mm BC, or other Manual focusing lenses I found it was essential to adjust the lens FL in the camera set up, it's probably different with the newer cameras so no point me giving instructions but I know it radically altered the stability scenario for me when using Manual Focus lenses of varying focal lengths on the E-M1.1... I should imagine you will find the same sam on the OM-3 and OM-1.2

 

[MEDISN]

The IBIS in the OM3 is rated a bit below the OM1 mk i which is a bit below the OM1 mk ii. It is the same rating as the OM5. I have the OM5 and OM1 mk i.

I find that using the IS Assist display on the OM1 has improved my handholding technique when using the OM1 gradually over a few months.

I can certainly reliably shoot the OM5 standing up unbraced at >1s at 12mm. At 150mm it seems to roughly correspond to that improvement over 1/2xFL, allowing for the focal length difference. I’ve seen images posted from the OM1 mk i at around 12mm and 3s, but I can’t do that at my age.

If you can’t do at least 1s with the OM3 at 12mm, something is wrong. You could get an extra stop by moving to an OM1 mk ii.

The A7Rvis rated the same as an OM1 mk i and the A7CR a little behind the OM5/OM3. I find the A7CR is way behind my OM5 in my hands.

TLR I think your OM3 is faulty.

Andrew

Spot on Andrew. This is from my OM-3 review:

Identical in my hands to the OM-5. The movement indicator is handy – you can toggle it on/off. With wide angle lenses I am shooting 2s routinely and sometimes 4s when conditions are mild or when using Sync-IS. At 50mm FoV, 1s shots handheld look very good. Video stabilization also very good, including digital stabilization. Not quite as good as the OM1 twins but in a compact body, very happy for this kind of performance.

I have not tested the "C" Sony models but the A7R5 still lags the OM1. Easy to see in video footage.





Panasonic/Leica are still ahead of Sony in this regard.

 

[James Stirling]

I've been reading for years about how the Olympus / OM System cameras supposedly have this ungodly IBIS, and how with the newer models you can get long exposures of several seconds, many reviewers claim this as well. I just got the OM-3 and I can't even get one second handheld without visible camera shake. I'm using the Leica 12-60 and the 75mm 1.8 (which obviously doesn't have IS, but neither is the 12-60 able to use OIS together with the camera body). At 12mm, I can get some semblance of stability, but nothing that I didn't with other cameras or something like the Fuji X100VI.

Is the IBIS really that good compared to other cameras, or is it just good but overhyped for some reason? Or am I doing something wrong? Does it require lens IS in conjunction with IBIS to work well? I've tried with lens IS on and off, with the different S-IS modes, with IS priority on, and Lens I.S. Priority on and off. Nothing seems to have a significant impact. 1 second exposures are possible maybe only 10% of the time, and even then they're not perfectly sharp.

For reference, I can get a 1 second exposure perfectly sharp, and without much effort, with the A7RV and 70-200 GM II at 200mm, but not with the Leica 12-60 at 40mm or even lower (nor the 75mm 1.8). Yes, the Sony's rated at 8 stops vs the 6.5 of the OM-3 and the 70-200 is easier to hold steady (and it's got IS), but still, since the reviews state several seconds, I'm confused that even 1 second seems almost impossible when I try my hardest. Many shots I took at 1/20 or 1/10 came out blurry as well, even though I didn't shoot from the hip but deliberately. The IS does seem to do something though and I can hear the buzzing from the body when I use it, and with the IS off it's even worse, but this just seems like any IS from the last 5-10 years or so at best and nothing close to the hype I've been hearing. I was looking forward to mitigating the low light restrictions of the MFT format with longer shutter times, but if it's not better than this, the OM-3 is heading back.

I've been wondering this myself, since I feel like I'm getting more handshake that I'm used to with the OM-1 Mark II. On the one hand, this is expected is the OM-3 is a stop less effective on paper. When I've tested in a semi-controlled situation this seems to track - in a high magnification situation where I can easily hand hold 1/60th with the OM-1, I have to use 1/125th to get the same result with the OM-3.

That said, I recently got the 9mm f/8 Lens Cap lens and have been surprised that I seem to be experiencing handshake on this as well, which has been asking the same question you have above.

Unfortunately, I don't have any good answers for you right now - but now that I know someone else out there is questioning this, I'll try to do some more tests to see what I find.

As I've been investigating this, one of the things I've done is turn on "Camera 1 -> 8. Image Stabilizer -> Multi-Shot Image Stabilizer -> IS Priority" on, which prevents the camera from firing if it's not confident in the IS functioning. This is to make sure that the images I'm evaluating were deemed by the camera to be sufficiently stable. Since doing that I've noticed that I do run into situations more often than I would expect where the camera won't fire. Releasing the shutter and re-half-pressing rectifies this, often requiring you to recompose.

So, the unknown thing for me right now (and why I haven't shared this, yet) is whether it's common for this to happen on the OM-1 Mark II as well (where I haven't historically used this).

Is it a camera issue? Is it a me issue? Is it a non-issue? Not really sure, but if others are playing around trying to understand the system and its potential shortcomings that may be a place to explore.

Could the lack of grip be a potential issue ? Holding the camera somewhat differently

 

[Sam Bennett]

I've been reading for years about how the Olympus / OM System cameras supposedly have this ungodly IBIS, and how with the newer models you can get long exposures of several seconds, many reviewers claim this as well. I just got the OM-3 and I can't even get one second handheld without visible camera shake. I'm using the Leica 12-60 and the 75mm 1.8 (which obviously doesn't have IS, but neither is the 12-60 able to use OIS together with the camera body). At 12mm, I can get some semblance of stability, but nothing that I didn't with other cameras or something like the Fuji X100VI.

Is the IBIS really that good compared to other cameras, or is it just good but overhyped for some reason? Or am I doing something wrong? Does it require lens IS in conjunction with IBIS to work well? I've tried with lens IS on and off, with the different S-IS modes, with IS priority on, and Lens I.S. Priority on and off. Nothing seems to have a significant impact. 1 second exposures are possible maybe only 10% of the time, and even then they're not perfectly sharp.

For reference, I can get a 1 second exposure perfectly sharp, and without much effort, with the A7RV and 70-200 GM II at 200mm, but not with the Leica 12-60 at 40mm or even lower (nor the 75mm 1.8). Yes, the Sony's rated at 8 stops vs the 6.5 of the OM-3 and the 70-200 is easier to hold steady (and it's got IS), but still, since the reviews state several seconds, I'm confused that even 1 second seems almost impossible when I try my hardest. Many shots I took at 1/20 or 1/10 came out blurry as well, even though I didn't shoot from the hip but deliberately. The IS does seem to do something though and I can hear the buzzing from the body when I use it, and with the IS off it's even worse, but this just seems like any IS from the last 5-10 years or so at best and nothing close to the hype I've been hearing. I was looking forward to mitigating the low light restrictions of the MFT format with longer shutter times, but if it's not better than this, the OM-3 is heading back.

I've been wondering this myself, since I feel like I'm getting more handshake that I'm used to with the OM-1 Mark II. On the one hand, this is expected is the OM-3 is a stop less effective on paper. When I've tested in a semi-controlled situation this seems to track - in a high magnification situation where I can easily hand hold 1/60th with the OM-1, I have to use 1/125th to get the same result with the OM-3.

That said, I recently got the 9mm f/8 Lens Cap lens and have been surprised that I seem to be experiencing handshake on this as well, which has been asking the same question you have above.

Unfortunately, I don't have any good answers for you right now - but now that I know someone else out there is questioning this, I'll try to do some more tests to see what I find.

I don't have either Camera, but I do have some of the lenses. As for manual focus lenses like the 9mm BC, or other Manual focusing lenses I found it was essential to adjust the lens FL in the camera set up, it's probably different with the newer cameras so no point me giving instructions but I know it radically altered the stability scenario for me when using Manual Focus lenses of varying focal lengths on the E-M1.1... I should imagine you will find the same sam on the OM-3 and OM-1.2

It’s a good call out, for sure. But just did some testing at 12mm at not a super high magnification, and the results are pretty much in line with what I saw with my other test - the OM-3 (as expected) is about a stop worse. This is taking 5 photos in silent mode, sequentially (holding down the shutter) and comparing them to see what percentage are sharp.

With the test I did I think it’s illuminating that even the OM-1 Mark II isn’t magic. Can you pull off 4 second exposures with it? Absolutely. Will you pull off every 4 second exposures? Probably not. So the takeaway is - if you’re really pushing it, take multiple photos and sort through them to pick the one with the least shake “back at the office”.

 

[meow]

I have an OM-1. But I find the stabilization very good and the 3 should be about the same, I think. I compare to my previous camera, an E-M1, which I thought was good compared to no stabilization at all, and the OM-1 is much better.

Of course how shaky your hands are is also a factor. I don't have steady hands anymore. And of course the focal length. 150mm eq. is pretty long.

I've got sharp enough shots at 4-5 sec with a manual 50mm (100mm eq.), no OIS. Longer times with a shorter lens. Of course you don't succeed every time.

Try with a shorter lens and practice a little. I don't know if OM-3 has this feature, but OM-1 has a tool that you can turn on the lets you visualize when you hold the camera steady, kind of a bouncing ball that you are supposed to keep steady. it feels odd at first, but it helps. Sorry, I don't find what it's called now. Maybe someone else can chip in?