Why not more IBIS?

[Mark Thornton]

Olympus also used IBIS on its later DSLR's for the obvious reason that they had a collection of unstabilised lenses that were not going to get a make over in stabilised form.

 

[Midwest]

Hmm, that makes sense. Thank you. I guess once manufacturers chose one route it is hard to change. It certainly keeps me from looking to jump ship to another brand, well that and accumulated m43 glass. I think, yes I can get maybe maximum 1 stop better noise (though worse DR) with the best of the best, but I'll be shooting everything at 2 or 3 stops higher ISO so what's the use.

No, IBIS makes no sense on a camera with an OVF. Unless you like making tele shots with a jittery viewfinder.

Apparently, that didn't prevent Konica-Minolta (Sony A-mount), Olympus and Pentax from going with IBIS rather than OIS for their DSLR systems with OVF. And why did Fuji, Panasonic, and Sony (E-mount) go with OIS for their non-OVF systems?

I don't know much or anything about Konica-Minolta (how are they doing these days?) and if Sony A-Mount stabilized / stabilizes the sensor then again I think it makes no sense from a DSLR-with-OVF perspective.

Fuji, Panasonic etc. using optical for their non OVF cameras was a matter of what they thought worked best. While IBIS is logical on an EVF camera, OIS also can work well and you don't give anything up. In fact some believe that at least til recently OIS was superior. I know my old FZ50 had OIS and I took some hand held shots at 1/3 of a second, very sharp. (This is just a test shot from back when.)



You can put OIS on an EVF camera and there's no problem. Put IBIS on a DSLR and you've given up some important things. That's just how they work.

 

[Erick L]

IBIS is a much greater energy hog than OIS and will suck much more power when used continuously. This is precisely the reason IBIS doesn't run all the time (only when the shutter is pressed) while OIS does.

OIS doesn't run all the time either.

 

[Midwest]

…is good too. I am using it with my Panny lenses on my G6

BTW... IBIS is just a marketing decision for each manufacturer... nothing else.

Spiro, I would contest that. it is a technology decision -- and a difficult one at that. Until the Oly finally developed the 5 way IBIS, its IBIS was generally inferior to the Panny OIS in my experience -- although it worked well in a narrow range of shutter speeds (around 1/10) with wide > normal lenses (again in my experience with the E-PL3).

I would contest that also. A "marketing decision" would be to have the marketing department say 'Hey, let's move the OIS out of the lens and into the camera! It would be a great selling point for our DSLR's!' Only it's not a marketing consideration, it's a functional consideration, and doing such a thing would be putting some ad blurb over and above how the camera works best.

I have another post here with a shot I took with my OIS Panny FZ50 at 1/3 second and quite sharp. I think that speaks to how well Panny's OIS worked on that camera, and probably on others.

 

[Midwest]

Olympus also used IBIS on its later DSLR's for the obvious reason that they had a collection of unstabilised lenses that were not going to get a make over in stabilised form.

Exactly. They are businesses and if that is all they had to work with, then they went with what was most cost-effective overall for their brand. Had they been able to start from scratch, OIS would have been the easy choice for a better camera.

Apparently there are plenty of people who don't 'get' why IBIS is not a great choice for a DSLR anyhow. They see 'Oh, all my lenses will be stabilized! Great!' and that's all the thought they give it.

 

[TrapperJohn]

Sony, Pentax, and (the former) Olympus DSLR's all have IBIS and OVF's (later Sony were SLT). I don't see IS making much if any difference in exposure or AF, at least I don't recall hearing any IBIS DSLR owners mentioning losing focus or bad exposure to camera shake. Stabilized VF, though, is nice to have.

Nice enough to offset the price difference, though? Canon and Nikon want you to think that, so they can charge extra, and so they aren't seen to be using dated technology.

Let's just say it's extra sweet to have the 5 axis IBIS available for anything I can mount on the OMD's.

 

[Wilu]

IBIS on a full frame sensor might be rather more challenging than it is on m4/3. That would discourage Nikon, Canon, and perhaps Sony from adopting it.

it has probably been pointed out by others (too long a thread to read everything) that Sony had IBIS in the full frame a900 and its sibling, the a850. that was back in 2008 and it worked quite well. like you i think that it's easier to implement with smaller, lighter sensors, though. and i sometimes felt that the IBIS of my APS-C a100 was a tad better - but that could also be related to the strong mirror slap of the a900 compared to that of the a100.

 

[Beach Bum]

Why don't more brands have something like IBIS? After more than 2 years I'm still awed every time I take an indoor shot with my E-M5, even of people, at 1/15 of a second ISO 200, and get great results. Sony's is moving away from the Alpha serious which does have it and toward the e-mount which doesn't. Pentax still has it and I respect them for it. But Fuji, Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, not on the horizon.

Even if the Fuji X-T1 is an amazing camera, but who cares if one is forced to take photos at 2 or 3 f stops higher ISO than I'd have to with the OMD series. I'd rather have my E-M5 or if I was going to earn more money from photography, buy an E-M1. I'm aware that IBIS doesn't matter with say photography of football at night or race cars, requiring high shutter speeds, but it helps in more situations than I expected.

The reason Panny won't abandon OIS is because they're a much more video oriented company than Oly. And IBIS sucks for video.

That's a typo, right? I am sure you meant to say that OIS is worse for video (as it is by comparison, at least as currently implemented).

Wrong. If we were to compare just OIS and IBIS, OIS would be better.

Please let us all know how you did the comparison. And if you didn't, how would you know which is better?

Oly does a combo deal, adding DIS to their IBIS. As far as I know, there's never been any Oly implementation of video IBIS that hasn't also included DIS.

If Oly uses a combination of DIS and IBIS for video (as seems likely, see below), what's wrong with that as long as it produces good results.

Nothing wrong with it, but they never put it in the specs for the E-M5 and E-M1, as far as I know. And with no option to only use IBIS, we can't accurately compare the two.



Furthermore, we don't know what relative contribution the IBIS gives and the DIS gives.



It would be nice to have the option to just use IBIS. Also, it's important to note that DIS can be done in post with a slight reduction in sharpness and possibly with better results, given the difference in computing power you have in real time vs with your computer. It's also something that can be added to OIS if the camera body supports it. There's nothing inherent in IBIS that makes DIS easier to implement.

I realize that some people may believe that Oly IBIS is buttery smooth for video,

Well, regardless of how it is achieved, Oly stabilization actually is "buttery smooth" for video.

Using methods that introduce artifacts into the video.

What artifacts specifically due to DIS are you talking about?

Digital stabilization is known to introduce artifacts, whether in real time or in post, because it's simply a software analysis of the motion. Not to mention the fact that you're doing the crop in real time.

but what they don't realize is that Oly has implemented a form of DIS on every MFT camera where they've done IBIS for video. So, when you see Oly's IBIS in action on YouTube, you're seeing a combination of IBIS and DIS. Note that I don't believe this is done for stills, as far as I know.

What makes you think that it is a combination of DIS and IBIS?

Even if Oly is using DIS with IBIS, why do I say it sucks, you might ask. Because IBIS is a much greater energy hog than OIS and will suck much more power when used continuously.

Do you have any evidence of that or is it just speculation on your part?

Yes. People that I've talked to that have used Oly cameras for video with IBIS have always told me that the video is cropped when IBIS is activated (as compared to no IBIS). If I'm wrong then let me know.

Cropped video to achieve stabilization means that DIS is being used. Not maybe but definitely.

Yes, video with stabilization enabled is cropped slightly, which suggests that sensor-shift is supplemented by DIS. This is also what Imaging-Resource reports in their review of the E-M10:

"For video recording, Olympus has also included a hybrid IS system utilizing both sensor-shift and digital image stabilization"

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m10/olympus-e-m10A.HTM

This is precisely the reason IBIS doesn't run all the time (only when the shutter is pressed) while OIS does.

It's a good idea to turn things off when they are not required. Why doesn't Pany do the same?

Why no option to keep it running all the time? Very strange if you ask me. I've theorized that it's either due to excessive power consumption or possibly heat generation.

Why would you want to run it all the time even if not required? Recent implementations (E-M1, E-M10) do in fact run it all the time when in magnified view since in that case it is indeed useful.

Because, who wants to look at a shaky image when composing a shot. This is especially true of telephoto lenses. It's distracting and annoying.



And if Panasonic feels that turning on/off OIS when you press the shutter doesn't add anything, who am I to argue? Perhaps in the final analysis, they found no benefit. From a consumer perspective, you certainly can't argue that this gives you any added benefit when shooting. The only benefit would be if the MFR felt it was more efficient or saved power. And it seems clear Panasonic felt it didn't. I certainly see very little power savings with OIS off vs on.



And you still have not given an explanation of why Oly doesn't give the option to keep it running all the time under any circumstance you want. You certainly can't argue that this would not be beneficial. If you do, it's a clear demonstration of bias on your part. The fact that you would fault Panny for not giving the option to turn on OIS only when the shutter is pressed yet you don't fault Oly for not giving the option to turn on IBIS all the time is a clear indication of bias, and you'll have a hard time convincing me or any objective reader otherwise.



And I stand by my assertion that there is probably some technological reason behind it.

There's simply no plausible reason not to give the user the option of leaving it on continuously unless there were a technological limitation.

It does run continuously when that's beneficial. See above.

Uh-huh.

And this jives with my understanding of IBIS and the energy requirements of moving the sensor (vs. moving a lens element).

And why would Panny give the option of only activating OIS when you press the shutter. Sounds ridiculous to request it to me, as I see no benefit to it (given the minimal power requirements of OIS). Panny gives you the option of turning on/off the OIS.

What are the OIS and IBIS power requirements? Got any facts and figures?

No. They don't release those and it's very difficult to measure.

And it's very probable that Oly uses a less energy hogging form of IBIS when video is engaged (hence the reports of less noise from IBIS in video than stills mode).

Yes, they do. Less energy is required for video stabilization than for stills since the objective is different. With stills, you want each frame as sharp as possibles. Hence IBIS has to move fast. With video, the primary objective is to eliminate the jerkiness between frames. Hence IBIS can move at a more leisurely pace.

Sounds dubious to me. Some would say grasping at straws. You want every frame as sharp as possible with video as well.

Actually you don't inasmuch as that sometimes conflicts with the desire to eliminate jerkiness across frames, which is of greater importance perceptually. But possibly, Oly's combination of sensor-shift and DIS helps them accomplish both.

Of course it helps with the shake, but DIS is known to negatively impact image quality in other ways. To see how effective it can be, again, take a look at the Sony action cam, which only uses DIS. You can walk with that and have a buttery smooth image. When something is that smooth, it's often clear that DIS is being used. But, again, it comes at a cost. And it's always nice when you have the opportunity to shut it off and just go with the mechanical stabilization.



And, again, no opportunity to really compare IBIS to OIS at wider angles. However, based on what I've seen, OIS performs better than IBIS at telephoto FL's, even with DIS on Oly cams. DIS works better at wider angles, and it shows in Oly's implementation.

Why does IBIS suck so much more power, you might ask. Because the sensor element is often much larger and heavier than the lens element that has to be controlled, hence more power consumed to move it (and also slower and less responsive movements of the element).

Do you have any evidence of that or is it just speculation on your part?

Yes, I have evidence of that. Aside from my sources,

Which are these sources? Links please.

I've actually taken apart some old gear to have a look at it.

Exactly what old gear did you take apart, exactly what did you see and measure, and exactly what conclusions about power requirements can you draw from these observations?

That's brings me to another point.

IBIS is less effective than Power OIS (by about 0.5 to 0.8 stops).

At least some implementations of Power OIS (as opposed to Mega OIS) were, when tested while shutter shock was still a problem. Below you find what I think is the latest list of the results from Lenstip/optyczne.pl that I have compiled:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52944375

And that difference will likely increase as the focal length is increased. The reasons are two-fold. First, the lens element being controlled will likely be much smaller than the sensor, so it can be moved quicker. This becomes more important as the focal length increases, because hand shake is amplified at greater focal lengths. Also, the compensatory movement of the lens element (OIS) can be magnified on the sensor, thus providing greater shake compensation than the actual motion of the lens element. This obviously can't be done with IBIS.

Here I have some new and interesting facts to offer as a counterpoint to your speculations. As we both know, the real effectiveness of the different stabilization systems couldn't really be tested with longer FLs in the past due to shutter-shock problems. Below 1/250 or 1/320, shutter shock spoiled the fun regardless.

With the electronic first curtain shutter (0-second anti-shock) now available on the E-M1, E-M10, and E-P5, we are finally in a position to do the test and of course I did it. I tried the 100-300 at 300 on my E-M1 and ... my preliminary results (I have still to do more extensive testing) indicate quite clearly that the E-M1 IBIS is significantly better than the 100-300 OIS once the shutter-shock problem is out of the way. At the same shutter speed, the number of keepers is clearly higher with IBIS than with OIS. And the lowest speed worth trying is lower with IBIS as well.

Here's a modest example of what I am talking about. This is a 100-percent crop shot with the Oly 75-300 I am now trying out as a replacement for the Pany 100-300. Hand-held with IBIS at 300 mm and 1/10.

Aside from the fact that I see no actual comparisons here,

None was intended. I just illustrated that IBIS can help me manage some six EV below the 1/EFL rule at 300 mm. I haven't yet managed to accomplish that with OIS.

A single shot proves absolutely nothing. And I've come to the conclusion that we need unbiased laboratory tests when it comes to these issues. Otherwise, we get unscientific statements such as I "managed six stops", which is meaningless.

you'll forgive me if I actually wait for an objective comparison.

Unlike you, I have no problem with impartiality. If OIS were better, I'd say so and use it whenever possible. If you think I am trying to hide anything, why would I have compiled the list I linked to above, showing that Power OIS is better than IBIS as long as shutter shock is still in the reckoning? And why would I state, as I have many times over, that, with my E-M5, I prefer the 14-45 OIS over IBIS since the OIS of that particular lens (not others) actually helps counteract shutter shock?

I think you are biased, as I mentioned earlier. The fact that you see nothing wrong with Oly not giving continuous stabilization yet you fault Panny for not giving the option of just turning on OIS when the shutter is pressed is a strong indication of bias in my book.



It's a nonsensical stand as there are clear and unequivocal benefits to continuous stabilization to anyone who would spend a second thinking about it (lack of shake when composing for one). While the thing you fault Panny for, I have yet to see you provide one lick of evidence that it provides any benefit in terms of power or effectiveness. And absent any laboratory tests demonstrating a benefit, there is simply no benefit to a shooter in a general sense from having this. In other words, the thing that you fault Panny for can only demonstrate benefit under laboratory conditions. It's not something that someone would ever put on their wish list, as there's no clear benefit to it (under any circumstance, as far as I can tell).

Also, it's important to note that the 100-300 is an old lens with mega OIS.

Is there any other Pany lens than this that goes to 300 mm?

I don't know.

So, why doesn't Panny do IBIS along with OIS. I believe this has everything to do with competition. If Panny were the sole player in MFT, I have a feeling they would. But, for now, I believe they want to protect their lens OIS. And I don't blame them

What exactly do you mean when you say they want to "protect their lens OIS"? What specifically is their objective? And how does abstaining from IBIS help them accomplish that?

If someone is a Panasonic body loyalist and Panny provides in body stabilization for all their cameras, there's less incentive to buy Panasonic lenses.

So you mean that Pany sticks to OIS in order to limit competition on the lens side? That may well be, but it is hardly a convincing argument to those of us who are on the consumer rather than manufacturer side, is it?

No, they stick to OIS because it's a technically better system. But decisions are often financially motivated and, in order to protect their technically better system, they have to make compromises, IMO. Note that this is all conjecture on my part as I'm not sitting in on their boardrooms.



IMO, OIS and IBIS have their benefits and disadvantages. The only disadvantage of OIS however is the fact that it doesn't work on all lenses. But OIS is a technically better system than IBIS when a lens has it.

For me, being a purist and understanding the benefits of in lens OIS, I would still buy the Panny lenses.

Noone denies you the privilege of buying whatever you want. As a non-purist, I simply prefer to use what is best rather than most pure.

I'm exactly the same. I meant, as a purist, I stick to what I know is best, rather than go with unscientific marketing hype. That's why I stick to OIS when available.



And as a video shooter and one who knows the disadvantages of IBIS at long focal lengths, I don't want to see MFT go down the wrong path with IBIS only. Without OIS, MFT will be severely handicapped in some areas.



For most of the shooting done on this forums, I'm sure IBIS is a godsend, but the typical user should understand the very limited scope of interest of people on this forum and understand that this is the reason for the bias toward IBIS.

But others would believe that stabilization is stabilization and just go with whatever.

A third option is to believe, as I do, that different stabilization systems are different means to the same end and then choose the best means to that end.

In summary, it's the limited interests (no video, etc.) on this forum that are the reason so many people don't understand why things are done the way they are. No offense.

Although you are right that most people on the forum are more focused on stills than on video, that certainly doesn't prevent them from understanding what's going on with regard to stabilization systems.

You're right.

Thanks!

It's ignorance of other aspects as well.

As well? I didn't say anything about ignorance.

I look forward to your response Anders.

Glad to hear that.

 

[Wilu]

Hmm, that makes sense. Thank you. I guess once manufacturers chose one route it is hard to change. It certainly keeps me from looking to jump ship to another brand, well that and accumulated m43 glass. I think, yes I can get maybe maximum 1 stop better noise (though worse DR) with the best of the best, but I'll be shooting everything at 2 or 3 stops higher ISO so what's the use.

No, IBIS makes no sense on a camera with an OVF. Unless you like making tele shots with a jittery viewfinder.

i think what you say is true for most people. personally however, i prefer an unstabilised viewfinder in most situations, even with tele lenses (400mm on FF). for me an unstabilised viewfinder makes it easier to see when i'm shaking a bit less. and yes, since adding a GH3 to my kit i do have experience with OIS, too.
that said, although i prefer IBIS, OIS isn't a dealbreaker for me. i'd even buy a system without any form of IS if everything else was just right.

 

[Bhima78]

I owned a Minolta Maxxum with IBIS... it was awesome. Had some crap exposure issues (overexposed like crazy), but the IBIS helped significantly.

 

[javayoda]

Because, who wants to look at a shaky image when composing a shot. This is especially true of telephoto lenses. It's distracting and annoying.

There's a setting to enable IBIS during half-press of the shutter button (5-axis IBIS at least). I think that's perfectly reasonable. I wish the GX7 worked the same way.

 

[Beach Bum]

Because, who wants to look at a shaky image when composing a shot. This is especially true of telephoto lenses. It's distracting and annoying.

There's a setting to enable IBIS during half-press of the shutter button (5-axis IBIS at least). I think that's perfectly reasonable. I wish the GX7 worked the same way.

--
PhotoGrok: http://www.haplessgenius.com/photogrok

Yes, I know that. That's what I meant by it's activated when you press the shutter button. Maybe I should have said "half-press".

Anyway, I want to emphasize again that, IMO, it shows a lack of critical reasoning/thinking to not question why it doesn't run continuously and why you don't have the option to enable it.

To say it's "good enough" is not good enough in my book because I know for a fact there are plenty of people (myself included) who don't want to look at a shaky image until I half-press the shutter.

And if you don't think Oly knows this, you're deluding yourself. If you think they did it just because it's "good enough" and there's no technological barrier, you're again deluding yourself.

All I'm asking for is just some critical thought on the issue. Is that really too much to ask?

 

[Ontario Gone]

Our own Kirk Tuck has a good blog on this very subject today as it happens. Interestingly he says he got the gist of it directly from Panasonic: http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/image-stabilization-in-body-or-in-lens.html

Nice catch there Rick. I guess this is the answer, nothing more really to wonder.

"What Panasonic have done is to forego the in-camera image stabilization in a compromise that gives the market a camera with incredibly good video performance, a tremendous ability to process high quality, high density video material, in camera, and the ability to run for as long as the memory card has available space, without a ramp up in noise generated by heat. In a fit of good design the entire alloy infrastructure of the camera is one giant heat sink working to the benefit of the imaging sensor. But this requires the sensor to be physically tightly coupled to the heat sinking".

 

[Anders W]

Hmm, that makes sense. Thank you. I guess once manufacturers chose one route it is hard to change. It certainly keeps me from looking to jump ship to another brand, well that and accumulated m43 glass. I think, yes I can get maybe maximum 1 stop better noise (though worse DR) with the best of the best, but I'll be shooting everything at 2 or 3 stops higher ISO so what's the use.

No, IBIS makes no sense on a camera with an OVF. Unless you like making tele shots with a jittery viewfinder.

Apparently, that didn't prevent Konica-Minolta (Sony A-mount), Olympus and Pentax from going with IBIS rather than OIS for their DSLR systems with OVF. And why did Fuji, Panasonic, and Sony (E-mount) go with OIS for their non-OVF systems?

I don't know much or anything about Konica-Minolta (how are they doing these days?)

I realize you don't know much about anything but Konica-Minolta is known as Sony these days.

and if Sony A-Mount stabilized / stabilizes the sensor then again I think it makes no sense from a DSLR-with-OVF perspective.

What I am effectively saying is that noone cares much about what you think makes sense or not.

Fuji, Panasonic etc. using optical for their non OVF cameras was a matter of what they thought worked best.

Tautology of the year?

While IBIS is logical on an EVF camera, OIS also can work well and you don't give anything up.

Yes, you do. Guess what!

In fact some believe that at least til recently OIS was superior. I know my old FZ50 had OIS and I took some hand held shots at 1/3 of a second, very sharp. (This is just a test shot from back when.)

"Until recently" is an important keyword. ;-)

You can put OIS on an EVF camera and there's no problem.

Some problems do remain. Guess what!

Put IBIS on a DSLR and you've given up some important things.

I didn't notice anything of importance while shooting my Pentax DSLR with 70-300. What would that be?

That's just how they work.

 

[Midwest]

Hmm, that makes sense. Thank you. I guess once manufacturers chose one route it is hard to change. It certainly keeps me from looking to jump ship to another brand, well that and accumulated m43 glass. I think, yes I can get maybe maximum 1 stop better noise (though worse DR) with the best of the best, but I'll be shooting everything at 2 or 3 stops higher ISO so what's the use.

No, IBIS makes no sense on a camera with an OVF. Unless you like making tele shots with a jittery viewfinder.

Apparently, that didn't prevent Konica-Minolta (Sony A-mount), Olympus and Pentax from going with IBIS rather than OIS for their DSLR systems with OVF. And why did Fuji, Panasonic, and Sony (E-mount) go with OIS for their non-OVF systems?

I don't know much or anything about Konica-Minolta (how are they doing these days?)

I realize you don't know much about anything but Konica-Minolta is known as Sony these days.

No, I don't know much about anything, but I know your rudeness isn't worth any more of my time.

 

[Midwest]

Sony, Pentax, and (the former) Olympus DSLR's all have IBIS and OVF's (later Sony were SLT). I don't see IS making much if any difference in exposure or AF, at least I don't recall hearing any IBIS DSLR owners mentioning losing focus or bad exposure to camera shake. Stabilized VF, though, is nice to have.

Nice enough to offset the price difference, though? Canon and Nikon want you to think that, so they can charge extra, and so they aren't seen to be using dated technology.

Let's just say it's extra sweet to have the 5 axis IBIS available for anything I can mount on the OMD's.

It makes perfect sense on mirrorless, at least if you don't care about video. I'm glad it serves you well.

 

[Tony8232]

Why don't more brands have something like IBIS? After more than 2 years I'm still awed every time I take an indoor shot with my E-M5, even of people, at 1/15 of a second ISO 200, and get great results. Sony's is moving away from the Alpha serious which does have it and toward the e-mount which doesn't. Pentax still has it and I respect them for it. But Fuji, Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, not on the horizon.

Even if the Fuji X-T1 is an amazing camera, but who cares if one is forced to take photos at 2 or 3 f stops higher ISO than I'd have to with the OMD series. I'd rather have my E-M5 or if I was going to earn more money from photography, buy an E-M1. I'm aware that IBIS doesn't matter with say photography of football at night or race cars, requiring high shutter speeds, but it helps in more situations than I expected.

The reason Panny won't abandon OIS is because they're a much more video oriented company than Oly. And IBIS sucks for video.

I realize that some people may believe that Oly IBIS is buttery smooth for video, but what they don't realize is that Oly has implemented a form of DIS on every MFT camera where they've done IBIS for video. So, when you see Oly's IBIS in action on YouTube, you're seeing a combination of IBIS and DIS. Note that I don't believe this is done for stills, as far as I know.

Even if Oly is using DIS with IBIS, why do I say it sucks, you might ask. Because IBIS is a much greater energy hog than OIS and will suck much more power when used continuously. This is precisely the reason IBIS doesn't run all the time (only when the shutter is pressed) while OIS does. And it's very probable that Oly uses a less energy hogging form of IBIS when video is engaged (hence the reports of less noise from IBIS in video than stills mode).

Why does IBIS suck so much more power, you might ask. Because the sensor element is often much larger and heavier than the lens element that has to be controlled, hence more power consumed to move it (and also slower and less responsive movements of the element). That's brings me to another point.

IBIS is less effective than Power OIS (by about 0.5 to 0.8 stops). And that difference will likely increase as the focal length is increased. The reasons are two-fold. First, the lens element being controlled will likely be much smaller than the sensor, so it can be moved quicker. This becomes more important as the focal length increases, because hand shake is amplified at greater focal lengths. Also, the compensatory movement of the lens element (OIS) can be magnified on the sensor, thus providing greater shake compensation than the actual motion of the lens element. This obviously can't be done with IBIS.

So, why doesn't Panny do IBIS along with OIS. I believe this has everything to do with competition. If Panny were the sole player in MFT, I have a feeling they would. But, for now, I believe they want to protect their lens OIS. And I don't blame them.

In summary, it's the limited interests (no video, etc.) on this forum that are the reason so many people don't understand why things are done the way they are. No offense.

I look forward to your response Anders.

You make some good points but I was under the impression IBIS actually uses less power that OIS. I'm not saying you are wrong but it think I read once that it was an advantage over OIS that has to be on all the time. I know that the E-M10 is rated for more shots on a battery than the GX7, could that be a factor?

 

[Beach Bum]

Why don't more brands have something like IBIS? After more than 2 years I'm still awed every time I take an indoor shot with my E-M5, even of people, at 1/15 of a second ISO 200, and get great results. Sony's is moving away from the Alpha serious which does have it and toward the e-mount which doesn't. Pentax still has it and I respect them for it. But Fuji, Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, not on the horizon.

Even if the Fuji X-T1 is an amazing camera, but who cares if one is forced to take photos at 2 or 3 f stops higher ISO than I'd have to with the OMD series. I'd rather have my E-M5 or if I was going to earn more money from photography, buy an E-M1. I'm aware that IBIS doesn't matter with say photography of football at night or race cars, requiring high shutter speeds, but it helps in more situations than I expected.

The reason Panny won't abandon OIS is because they're a much more video oriented company than Oly. And IBIS sucks for video.

I realize that some people may believe that Oly IBIS is buttery smooth for video, but what they don't realize is that Oly has implemented a form of DIS on every MFT camera where they've done IBIS for video. So, when you see Oly's IBIS in action on YouTube, you're seeing a combination of IBIS and DIS. Note that I don't believe this is done for stills, as far as I know.

Even if Oly is using DIS with IBIS, why do I say it sucks, you might ask. Because IBIS is a much greater energy hog than OIS and will suck much more power when used continuously. This is precisely the reason IBIS doesn't run all the time (only when the shutter is pressed) while OIS does. And it's very probable that Oly uses a less energy hogging form of IBIS when video is engaged (hence the reports of less noise from IBIS in video than stills mode).

Why does IBIS suck so much more power, you might ask. Because the sensor element is often much larger and heavier than the lens element that has to be controlled, hence more power consumed to move it (and also slower and less responsive movements of the element). That's brings me to another point.

IBIS is less effective than Power OIS (by about 0.5 to 0.8 stops). And that difference will likely increase as the focal length is increased. The reasons are two-fold. First, the lens element being controlled will likely be much smaller than the sensor, so it can be moved quicker. This becomes more important as the focal length increases, because hand shake is amplified at greater focal lengths. Also, the compensatory movement of the lens element (OIS) can be magnified on the sensor, thus providing greater shake compensation than the actual motion of the lens element. This obviously can't be done with IBIS.

So, why doesn't Panny do IBIS along with OIS. I believe this has everything to do with competition. If Panny were the sole player in MFT, I have a feeling they would. But, for now, I believe they want to protect their lens OIS. And I don't blame them.

In summary, it's the limited interests (no video, etc.) on this forum that are the reason so many people don't understand why things are done the way they are. No offense.

I look forward to your response Anders.

You make some good points but I was under the impression IBIS actually uses less power that OIS. I'm not saying you are wrong but it think I read once that it was an advantage over OIS that has to be on all the time. I know that the E-M10 is rated for more shots on a battery than the GX7, could that be a factor?

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/90891174@N04/

Do you know of ANY IBIS implementation that runs continuously? Oly's IBIS implementation has never had continuous operation. Panny's IBIS implementation in the GX7 doesn't have continuous operation. Yet Panny has no problem with lens OIS running continuously. There's a reason for this that hasn't been made public. And, IMO, it has to be one of two things. Either IBIS takes too much power when run continuously or generates too much heat (or both).

OIS doesn't have to be on all the time. It's just that its power consumption is small enough that it's not an issue you have to worry about. Hence, Panny doesn't bother to give any on/off implementation with a half-press of the shutter. They certainly could if they wanted to.

Regarding the GX7 vs. E-M10, I don't think it has anything to do with OIS vs IBIS. The first thing to consider is that I doubt Panny would tabulate their run time with an OIS lens if Oly doesn't do it as well. So, I don't think OIS is a factor at all.

It probably has more to do with the size of the camera, the size/capacity of the battery, and the way that each manufacturer calculates the number of shots.

 

[Tony8232]

Why don't more brands have something like IBIS? After more than 2 years I'm still awed every time I take an indoor shot with my E-M5, even of people, at 1/15 of a second ISO 200, and get great results. Sony's is moving away from the Alpha serious which does have it and toward the e-mount which doesn't. Pentax still has it and I respect them for it. But Fuji, Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, not on the horizon.

Even if the Fuji X-T1 is an amazing camera, but who cares if one is forced to take photos at 2 or 3 f stops higher ISO than I'd have to with the OMD series. I'd rather have my E-M5 or if I was going to earn more money from photography, buy an E-M1. I'm aware that IBIS doesn't matter with say photography of football at night or race cars, requiring high shutter speeds, but it helps in more situations than I expected.

The reason Panny won't abandon OIS is because they're a much more video oriented company than Oly. And IBIS sucks for video.

That's a typo, right? I am sure you meant to say that OIS is worse for video (as it is by comparison, at least as currently implemented).

Wrong. If we were to compare just OIS and IBIS, OIS would be better. Oly does a combo deal, adding DIS to their IBIS. As far as I know, there's never been any Oly implementation of video IBIS that hasn't also included DIS.

I realize that some people may believe that Oly IBIS is buttery smooth for video,

Well, regardless of how it is achieved, Oly stabilization actually is "buttery smooth" for video.

Using methods that introduce artifacts into the video.

but what they don't realize is that Oly has implemented a form of DIS on every MFT camera where they've done IBIS for video. So, when you see Oly's IBIS in action on YouTube, you're seeing a combination of IBIS and DIS. Note that I don't believe this is done for stills, as far as I know.

What makes you think that it is a combination of DIS and IBIS?

Even if Oly is using DIS with IBIS, why do I say it sucks, you might ask. Because IBIS is a much greater energy hog than OIS and will suck much more power when used continuously.

Do you have any evidence of that or is it just speculation on your part?

Yes. People that I've talked to that have used Oly cameras for video with IBIS have always told me that the video is cropped when IBIS is activated (as compared to no IBIS). If I'm wrong then let me know.

Cropped video to achieve stabilization means that DIS is being used. Not maybe but definitely.

This is precisely the reason IBIS doesn't run all the time (only when the shutter is pressed) while OIS does.

It's a good idea to turn things off when they are not required. Why doesn't Pany do the same?

Why no option to keep it running all the time? Very strange if you ask me. I've theorized that it's either due to excessive power consumption or possibly heat generation.

There's simply no plausible reason not to give the user the option of leaving it on continuously unless there were a technological limitation.

And this jives with my understanding of IBIS and the energy requirements of moving the sensor (vs. moving a lens element).

And why would Panny give the option of only activating OIS when you press the shutter. Sounds ridiculous to request it to me, as I see no benefit to it (given the minimal power requirements of OIS). Panny gives you the option of turning on/off the OIS.

And it's very probable that Oly uses a less energy hogging form of IBIS when video is engaged (hence the reports of less noise from IBIS in video than stills mode).

Yes, they do. Less energy is required for video stabilization than for stills since the objective is different. With stills, you want each frame as sharp as possibles. Hence IBIS has to move fast. With video, the primary objective is to eliminate the jerkiness between frames. Hence IBIS can move at a more leisurely pace.

Sounds dubious to me. Some would say grasping at straws. You want every frame as sharp as possible with video as well.

Why does IBIS suck so much more power, you might ask. Because the sensor element is often much larger and heavier than the lens element that has to be controlled, hence more power consumed to move it (and also slower and less responsive movements of the element).

Do you have any evidence of that or is it just speculation on your part?

Yes, I have evidence of that. Aside from my sources, I've actually taken apart some old gear to have a look at it.

That's brings me to another point.

IBIS is less effective than Power OIS (by about 0.5 to 0.8 stops).

At least some implementations of Power OIS (as opposed to Mega OIS) were, when tested while shutter shock was still a problem. Below you find what I think is the latest list of the results from Lenstip/optyczne.pl that I have compiled:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52944375

And that difference will likely increase as the focal length is increased. The reasons are two-fold. First, the lens element being controlled will likely be much smaller than the sensor, so it can be moved quicker. This becomes more important as the focal length increases, because hand shake is amplified at greater focal lengths. Also, the compensatory movement of the lens element (OIS) can be magnified on the sensor, thus providing greater shake compensation than the actual motion of the lens element. This obviously can't be done with IBIS.

Here I have some new and interesting facts to offer as a counterpoint to your speculations. As we both know, the real effectiveness of the different stabilization systems couldn't really be tested with longer FLs in the past due to shutter-shock problems. Below 1/250 or 1/320, shutter shock spoiled the fun regardless.

With the electronic first curtain shutter (0-second anti-shock) now available on the E-M1, E-M10, and E-P5, we are finally in a position to do the test and of course I did it. I tried the 100-300 at 300 on my E-M1 and ... my preliminary results (I have still to do more extensive testing) indicate quite clearly that the E-M1 IBIS is significantly better than the 100-300 OIS once the shutter-shock problem is out of the way. At the same shutter speed, the number of keepers is clearly higher with IBIS than with OIS. And the lowest speed worth trying is lower with IBIS as well.

Here's a modest example of what I am talking about. This is a 100-percent crop shot with the Oly 75-300 I am now trying out as a replacement for the Pany 100-300. Hand-held with IBIS at 300 mm and 1/10.

Aside from the fact that I see no actual comparisons here, you'll forgive me if I actually wait for an objective comparison. Also, it's important to note that the 100-300 is an old lens with mega OIS.

So, why doesn't Panny do IBIS along with OIS. I believe this has everything to do with competition. If Panny were the sole player in MFT, I have a feeling they would. But, for now, I believe they want to protect their lens OIS. And I don't blame them

What exactly do you mean when you say they want to "protect their lens OIS"? What specifically is their objective? And how does abstaining from IBIS help them accomplish that?

If someone is a Panasonic body loyalist and Panny provides in body stabilization for all their cameras, there's less incentive to buy Panasonic lenses. For me, being a purist and understanding the benefits of in lens OIS, I would still buy the Panny lenses.

But others would believe that stabilization is stabilization and just go with whatever.

In summary, it's the limited interests (no video, etc.) on this forum that are the reason so many people don't understand why things are done the way they are. No offense.

Although you are right that most people on the forum are more focused on stills than on video, that certainly doesn't prevent them from understanding what's going on with regard to stabilization systems.

You're right. It's ignorance of other aspects as well.

I look forward to your response Anders.

Glad to hear that.

"Aside from the fact that I see no actual comparisons here, you'll forgive me if I actually wait for an objective comparison. Also, it's important to note that the 100-300 is an old lens with mega OIS."

That is a major flaw with OIS your stuck with old technology in your expensive lenses even if you upgrade the body unless Panasonic gives in and implements some sort of IBIS. Personally I think Panasonic makes some great glass and cameras but OIS wasn't one of their better ideas IMO.

Anthony Gasparetto

Explore Anthony Gasparetto’s 485 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[javayoda]

Because, who wants to look at a shaky image when composing a shot. This is especially true of telephoto lenses. It's distracting and annoying.

There's a setting to enable IBIS during half-press of the shutter button (5-axis IBIS at least). I think that's perfectly reasonable. I wish the GX7 worked the same way.