Close-up "filter lens" and effect on IBIS setting

connloyalist

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
128
Location
Netherlands
Real Name
Christine
Possibly dumb question:

I have started experimenting with "filter" type screw on close-up lenses with for example a +2 or +3 diopter. Does the use of one of these have an effect on the focal length for the IBIS setting? I use mostly manual lenses so the camera does not set IBIS for me. My hunch says "no" because you aren't changing the actual focal length of the lens, but I am not sure.

Regards, C.
 

Petrochemist

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
1,390
Location
N Essex, UK
Real Name
Mike
Possibly dumb question:

I have started experimenting with "filter" type screw on close-up lenses with for example a +2 or +3 diopter. Does the use of one of these have an effect on the focal length for the IBIS setting? I use mostly manual lenses so the camera does not set IBIS for me. My hunch says "no" because you aren't changing the actual focal length of the lens, but I am not sure.

Regards, C.
But they are changing the actual focal length of the lens combination. Adding a +3 diopter to a 100mm lens (which is +10 diopter) makes a combination of +13 diopter or about 77mm focal length. This is HOW they work. A lenses diopter is defined as 1/focal length in meters, when combining lenses their diopters are added to see the effect of the combination.

I've never been convinced that IBIS works as well in macro situations. The degree of sensor movement would be very different at high magnifcations & extension tubes don't normally tell the camera how long they are (or even that they are present)...
 

archaeopteryx

Gambian sidling bush
Joined
Feb 25, 2017
Messages
1,726
The degree of sensor movement would be very different at high magnifications & extension tubes don't normally tell the camera how long they are (or even that they are present)...
To break this down a bit,
  1. Neither OIS or IBIS assists with z stabilization (the optical axis). AF-C doesn't provide stabilization and doesn't apply to manual lenses but, in autofocus cases, can provide some compensation for z axis movement.
  2. Roll is magnification invariant.
  3. IBIS correction for xy body translation (movement in the image plane) increases linearly with magnification. Since the the correction is 1:1 with translation at 1x magnification the displacements are especially easy to calculate. Because it doesn't know the focus distance, five axis IBIS accepting a focal length input for manual lenses has to assume some magnification to correct for and probably it assumes something low, such as for a 10 m focus distance, so I suspect these IBIS axes are pretty much disabled in this scenario.
  4. The xy sensor translation, in mm, to compensate for pitch and yaw is -S tan(Δθ/AOV), S being the sensor size, Δθ the angular displacement, and AOV the angle of view provided by the lens(es) used. Within the constraints of IBIS motion and, for native lenses, the image circle it's probably reasonable to use the small angle approximation -S Δθ/AOV and assume the angle of view is calculated exactly from the focal length given since the body lacks focus distance, focus breathing, and other information.
Assuming a naïve IBIS system working only from accelerometer information, the above implies
  1. IBIS will probably compensate more accurately if given a focal length longer than the rear lens in the coupled pair (close up lens and manual lens in this case) rather than the focal length of the lenses.
  2. The optimal focal length to enter will vary based on magnification and the photographer's stability and, since IBIS is probably trying to compensate for both translation and rotation based on rotation only mechanisms, may not ever be that successful.
Neither of these hold if the IBIS is smart enough to learn the system characteristics by detecting and tracking features in the image but, despite tracking AF having been available for some years now, I've not heard of any manufacturer taking this obvious step. So, presumably, naïve IBIS assumptions apply.

I don't have either an IBIS body or manual rear lenses that are useful for close up or macro photography so haven't been able to test these hypothesis. But if someone's inclined to try them I'd be curious of the results.
 
Joined
May 15, 2016
Messages
5,013
Location
Sydney, Australia
I use some of these close up filters with hand held macro. lower magnification than the Raynox ones. NISI and Olympus are the ones I use.
I find the IBIS still works for me but auto focus can hunt more with the Oly 60mm Macro lens, or zoom lenses.

To be specific I only do close up not real 1:1 macro
 

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom