1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

IBIS Makes So Much More Sense

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by nueces snapper, Sep 10, 2011.

  1. nueces snapper

    nueces snapper Mu-43 All-Pro

    You know I'd have an Oly AND a Pany but for Pany's ILIS. There's a great deal on a GH-2 on the FS board and I would snap that up in a minute just for fun and experimentation ... except I'd have to buy Pany lenses for it. Too bad.

    I think Pany outsmarted themselves. IBIS just makes more sense in every way. Lenses can be cheaper and more $ can go to better glass. I think a lot of folks would own both system bodies if they were both IBIS.

    And as an Oly fan I'm not really interested too much in Pany lenses. ( the PL 25mm may be an exception although not if I have to live with a rattlesnake ). But Panasonic is stuck with ILIS. Forever.

    But then what do I know. I'm a m4/3 noob. :tongue:
     
  2. Promit

    Promit Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 6, 2011
    Baltimore, MD
    Promit Roy
    The usual acronyms are IBIS and OIS :) Honestly I think Panny does a better job on bodies overall, but IBIS is a big enough feature to keep me on the Oly side. I don't mind having OIS lenses, the 45-200 for example seems to work much better with OIS on and IBIS off, especially as you get to longer focal lengths. But I get stabilization with a nice compact cheap kit lens, and the pancakes, as well as any adapted prime lens I want.

    Sure a lot of people are perfectly happy without IBIS, but I think it just makes the whole system that much better.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, CA
    This is what annoys me about micro four thirds. I like aspects from both camera brands. I like IBIS, but I also like the fact my G3 uses a newer 16mp sensor. I wish they'd just combine their technology. :frown:
     
  4. fredlong

    fredlong Just this guy...

    Apr 18, 2011
    Massachusetts USA
    Fred
    YES! Give me body like the G2/GH2 with IBIS and Olympus flash flexibility and one of the newer sensors...
     
  5. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    Except that it doesn't stabilize the view in the finder nor work while filming video. It is also arguable that OIS is more effective since the sensing is further away from the COG and therefore more sensitive.

    Until the very most recent crop of lenses (namely the 12mm) the Panny lenses have been better than the Oly competition.

    Yes, the OIS lenses are more expensive, but that's not enough to make your statement true, even in the slightest. As with all things in m43 land, it's a helluva lot more complicated than that.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. arbutusq

    arbutusq Mu-43 Regular

    34
    Aug 10, 2011
    I went from a Pentax (IBIS) to an Panny (OIS) and I find OIS is slightly more effective but I think I'll miss IBIS when I get a Pentax adapter. It is nice to have stabilization applied to every lens no matter how old.
     
  7. DIS Ottawa

    DIS Ottawa Guest

    I think both systems have their benefits. IBIS is always there and works with all lenses, but as was said earlier, it does not stabilize the image in the viewfinder and does not work when shooting video.

    In lens stabilization does stabilize the image in the viewfinder, which can be very helpful, especially with long lenses. It can also be tuned for each lens, increasing its effectiveness.

    Of course, the stabilization system with IBIS is fixed for that camera while as newer and better stabilizations technologies are developed, they can be applied to new lenses.
    Canon's latest lenses with hybrid stabilization is a good example of this.

    The fact that both Canon and Nikon use in lens stabilization may be indicative of where the technology is now. In the future, who knows?
     
  8. Art

    Art Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 13, 2011
    San Francisco, CA
    It makes more sense to have IBIS because it doesn't in any way prevent you from using OIS lenses but it gives you so much more flexibility. I read on DP Review that Pentax IBIS isn't very good while Sony and Olympus implementation is very effective. Not many review sites actually perform IS tests. E.g. This review clearly shows that Oly E-P3 IBIS is far superior than Panasonic OIS for kit lenses: Resolution - Olympus E-P3 Digital Camera Review
    For longer lenses, I am sure that OIS is better because it helps to stabilize the preview and it's immensely more helpful for video. Again, it's not about IBIS vs OIS, it's about every camera to have IBIS as an option.

    P.S. Remember, not all OIS created equal. E.g., Samsung OIS is just a joke. I beleive Canon and Nikon are leading in this area.
     
  9. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    Actually, that thinking is rather backwards. Lenses far outlast bodies, and photographers don't invest in new lenses to replace their already huge investment in high quality optics, just because the OIS system is upgraded. Not only is optical design timeless, but lenses are also far more durable than bodies which tend to break down within a limited lifespan.

    Bodies are the ones which are updated regularly, so having this technology in the body means that you get the newer technology when it comes in with your regular body upgrades. A person may upgrade a new body every other year, while keeping the same lens (within a focal range, or a specific purpose) for 10 years or more. Not only that, but lenses are also specific to specialized purposes so when a photographer is ready to upgrade a single lens, that upgrade will only apply to ONE purpose lens, not the entire collection.

    Also, OIS is not backwards compatible... Only newer lenses have OIS (and even then, only some), while a new body will apply IBIS to all old lenses, even if they're over 50 years old and IS was never ever thought of. That makes this old glass even MORE timeless, and less likely to be replaced by the photographer with new, "modern" glass.

    There have been a lot of advancements in IBIS technology over the years since it was introduced, though these changes are often not marketed... just having IBIS is enough of a marketing hit, lol. For instance, we saw the firmware update which allowed for manual input of focal length for legacy lenses, then from the E-510 to the E-520 we saw the introduction of horizontal-only IS for vertical panning, in the E-620 we saw a complete revamp of the IS system to a more mechanical form which allowed it to be fit into a smaller body (a technology which was essential for the later introduction of the PEN series), and the E-5 and E-P3 are said to have some slight tweaking of the IS system to make them more effective. Many more people were able to take advantage of these updates because they replace bodies on a regular basis. If these updates were made in the lens, very few people would have seen them. Especially if they've been using high quality glass for years and years, then the new technology comes out in lesser glass that can't replace their good, timeless glass (or offers no optical advantage otherwise).
     
    • Like Like x 3
  10. DIS Ottawa

    DIS Ottawa Guest

    Ned,

    You make a good point - bodies do get replaced more frequently than previously. And people do hold onto lenses for a long time, but they also buy new lenses too. And some people hold onto their bodies, even in this digital age, for a very long time. I know quite a few. Enthusiasts like us may replace their bodies every other year, but most people don't.

    You don't mention the advantages of in lens stabilization that I and a previous poster mentioned, i.e the image is stabilized in the viewfinder, when shooting video and can be optimized for each lens. These benefits are not inconsequential. Equally true are all the benefits that accrue to IBIS that you mentioned.

    As I said, both systems have their benefits. I currently only have experience with in lens stabilization but am planning on buying an Olympus E-P3 soon so may have something further to add once I do.
     
  11. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    You are right, the stabilized view in the viewfinder is by far the best advantage of OIS over IBIS, in my opinion. I have also mentioned this myself many times in the past. ;)

    But at least with a system like Four-Thirds and Micro Four-Thirds, we have contributing companies who use both IBIS as well as OIS. That means that if you buy bodies from Olympus, you have the choice of getting both non-IS and IS glass... So when you buy the IS glass, you have the option of using either OIS or IBIS according to your preference. xD Sometimes we CAN have the best of both worlds...
     
  12. Mellow

    Mellow Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 27, 2010
    Florida or Idaho
    Tom
    These are all great points.

    I'll add that it seems that IBIS makes possible the smallest possible stabilized m43 package at the present time: an IBIS-capable body with a thin pancake without OIS (ironically, the best are made by Panasonic!). I love to death my Panasonic 14-45mm OIS kit lens, but it's significantly larger than the Oly equivalent and that's probably because it doesn't have to have OIS.

    That being said, I'm VERY interested in Panasonic's new x-series zooms, which have both OIS and are very small. Could make everything I just wrote completely wrong--I guess we'll see when they come out and can test them.
     
  13. nueces snapper

    nueces snapper Mu-43 All-Pro

    I'm Learning Here

    I knew it was not ILIS but couldn't hook up with the correct brain cells so I just wrote ILIS. Actually I kinda like it. :tongue:

    Whatayawannabet that Panasonic was thinking they could coral their market and keep them from buying Oly glass by going with OIS? This is where I think they outsmarted themselves. I really wanted to pick up that GH2 but not if I need a whole other set of lenses.

    How many others enthralled with m4/3 would own a body from both participants if they were truly interchangeable? :horse:
     
  14. aw614

    aw614 Mu-43 Regular

    122
    Mar 19, 2011
    I am still learning to use my GF1 effectively without the IBIS, using the 20mm on my ep1, it was allowed a bit more compromise handshake, whereas I've had a few more blurry pictures on the gf1 in low light due to light handshake.
     
  15. DIS Ottawa

    DIS Ottawa Guest

    Many photographers find that using good camera technique, including keeping your shutter speed up, negates the need for image stabilization in many situations. It's not needed when using a tripod (and depending on the system, can introduce camera shake that wouldn't otherwise be there) and, for me at least, compromises auto focus speed when shooting birds, particularly birds in flight. As long as I have sufficient light, I turn it off.

    Of course, there are times when it allows one to capture good images that would otherwise be impossible.
     
  16. crsnydertx

    crsnydertx Mu-43 Top Veteran

    995
    Dec 31, 2010
    Houston, TX
    Chuck
    My "IBIS" is dialing in a higher ISO. I would rather see advancements in sensor technology that permit cleaner images at ISO 1600+ than anything related to stabilization.
     
  17. Art

    Art Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 13, 2011
    San Francisco, CA
    Only those X-lenses likely won't have OIS switch so they will default to OIS off on Oly bodies. Panasonic wants you to buy their bodies instead. I doubt they will share proprietary protocol with Oly so they can do firmware update...
     
  18. DIS Ottawa

    DIS Ottawa Guest

    Agreed.
     
  19. Mellow

    Mellow Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 27, 2010
    Florida or Idaho
    Tom
    I've heard this before but, really, it's not like their mutually incompatible. Cleaner ISO would (will?!) be great, but you will always be able to go a little further in terms of low-light shooting with IBIS.

    Of course, the qualifier always applies: as long as your subject isn't moving!
     
  20. Promit

    Promit Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 6, 2011
    Baltimore, MD
    Promit Roy
    Oly claims three stops or so via IBIS, so I guess let me know when the sensor is able to make ISO 12800 shots look like ISO 1600 shots look now? :confused: