E-M10: Unexpected IBIS goodness

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by dancebert, Dec 15, 2014.

  1. dancebert

    dancebert Mu-43 Veteran

    259
    Jan 18, 2014
    Hua Hin, Thailand
    I was playing with intentional camera movement (ICM) on escalators. Set f18 at 0.8s but forgot to turn off IS. Surprise was that despite the combination of shutter speed, an unbraced waist level 2 handed hold and a moving escalator, the IBIS captured some portions with minimal blur. I've never tested IQ at f18 with the P14-45, or any lens for that matter. For all I know, that 'minimal blur' is just IQ, meaning the IBIS nailed it.

    Do I have a question or Is there a point? Not really, though I am curious if when everything is moving if IBIS locks on to whatever it can best use as a target regardless of focus point, which I thought was the shoe rack to right of center of frame. That might be useful before I move on from playing with ICM.



    [​IMG]


    Uncropped
     
  2. gobeatty

    gobeatty Mu-43 Regular

    82
    Sep 15, 2014
    Not sure I understand your post. The photos look motion blurred to me.
     
  3. bigal1000

    bigal1000 Mu-43 Veteran

    337
    Sep 10, 2010
    New Hampshire
  4. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Northumberland
    Maybe they're a lot less blurred than OP was expecting?

    As far as I know IBIS does not lock onto visual cues at all : it responds to physical movement.
    There's a promotional video of one (e-P5 maybe) setup on a rocking gimbal which nevertheless shows a steady image from its sensor. Impressive.
     
  5. dancebert

    dancebert Mu-43 Veteran

    259
    Jan 18, 2014
    Hua Hin, Thailand
    Really? On the tiles, I see low IQ in this crop, not motion blur. In which direction do you see the camera was moving?

    [​IMG]
     
  6. dancebert

    dancebert Mu-43 Veteran

    259
    Jan 18, 2014
    Hua Hin, Thailand
    I invite you to respond to my comment in post #5. Would my OP have been clear if I explained that the third photo was there only to show the size and position of the first 2 photos, and that anything I said about 'minimal blur' didn't apply to the third photo?

    That's what I thought, which is why I described portions of the image showing no motion as 'unexpected goodness'.
     
  7. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Northumberland
    Everything is blurred, probably solely because of camera movement. Low IQ, yes, because everything is blurred, and possibly f18 diffraction.

    If there is something you are aiming to achieve with exposures during camera movement, another option would be to use a brighter aperture (at which m4/3rds lenses are happier than f18) but add a neutral density filter or simply a polariser to reduce the light so lengthen the shutterspeed.
     
  8. dancebert

    dancebert Mu-43 Veteran

    259
    Jan 18, 2014
    Hua Hin, Thailand
    Yes. I don't carry my ND filters unless I know they'll be needed. I wonder how many escalator trips I can take before attracting mall security? :)
     
  9. RobWatson

    RobWatson Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I see "zooming" with feet since the distance is changing as the escalator moves.

    I'm unfamiliar with mall security protocols in Thailand but here a donut works for another 10 trips!
     
  10. gobeatty

    gobeatty Mu-43 Regular

    82
    Sep 15, 2014
    I think I get it now. Pardon my slowness :)

    So one part of the image shows blur (the sign) and the tiles do not. Interesting. Wonder if it's related to shooting from an escalator and the edges of the frame having more apparant motion than areas closer to the center of the frame?
     
  11. dancebert

    dancebert Mu-43 Veteran

    259
    Jan 18, 2014
    Hua Hin, Thailand
    heehee. Is the donut for you or the mall cop?
     
  12. dancebert

    dancebert Mu-43 Veteran

    259
    Jan 18, 2014
    Hua Hin, Thailand
    Sure, if you'll pardon my less than clear OP.

    I think so. Once I realized the sign in the second photo is much farther from the camera than the white and green structures blocking it, apparent motion explained it - or explained it enough for me.