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

"In Body" Stabilization vs "In Lens" Stabilization

Discussion in 'Other Systems' started by RT_Panther, Jul 13, 2011.

  1. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
  2. Grinch

    Grinch Mu-43 Top Veteran

    813
    Jan 9, 2011
    Canada
    Interesting but not all of those statements ring true to me:
    - it states that it means faster AF, did someone forget to tell Olympus this? Last I heard the new pens all have faster AF Than DSLR's
    - also states that this affect image blur in viewfinder, not do with m43 as there is no mirror
    - panny is releasing a lumix camera/phone and it has body stabilization

    Although maybe this is just Nikon's way of justifying there system, or the fact they can't do what Olympus has.
     
  3. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
    Someone stated elsewhere that Nikon's VR legacy goes back to film days....it was easier & cheaper to stabilize lens elements rather than the actual film itself......This makes sense to me....
     
  4. Grinch

    Grinch Mu-43 Top Veteran

    813
    Jan 9, 2011
    Canada
    Well that makes sense, but I don't get how this would apply to panasonic? They don't use mirrors, and I don't think they did film. Not knocking you, I appreciate the info.
     
  5. odsagn

    odsagn Mu-43 Rookie

    23
    May 6, 2011
    Los Angeles
    Interesting, although in the mFT scheme size (or lack there of) is the name of the game. Oly's IBIS allows for their collapsible lenses.

    Not to mention it works with any lens including pannys (plus a ton of others w/ an adapter). Just my $.02
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
    I think the part about fine tuning a particular lens could possibly apply to Panasonic.....
     
  7. songs2001

    songs2001 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    693
    Jul 8, 2011
    The new pens don't have faster AF during continuous AF which is where SLRs shine.

    The Pens don't stabilized until you press the shutter at which point the viewfinder blacks out.

    Nikon has had low end point and shoot cameras with in body stabilization. It's not like they can't do it. It's because they don't want to for whatever reason.
     
  8. Grinch

    Grinch Mu-43 Top Veteran

    813
    Jan 9, 2011
    Canada
    You may be right about continuous, but that's not what I said, I mentioned AF NOT C-AF.

    RT I agree with you on that point, just not on the ones I stipulated. Has panny ever been associated with Nikon in any ventures? Just curious if you are onto where they got there plan to just do lenses and only certain lenses...
     
  9. songs2001

    songs2001 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    693
    Jul 8, 2011
    Olympus does well under controlled circumstances with that one lens that is wide. You would need to look at the focusing speed handheld using long lenses using continuous AF, which is how most people using long lenses would use.
     
  10. scarbrd

    scarbrd Mu-43 Regular

    144
    Jul 1, 2011
    Houston, TX
    One element of the m4/3 world that isn't an element for Nikon or Canon SLR is the ability to use legacy lenses of various mounts. This is one of the more attractive aspects of the m4/3 genre that just isn't a consideration from the traditional dSLR folks.

    For that reason alone, IBIS is preferable in that you get the benefit of image stabilization with any lens.
     
  11. zettapixel

    zettapixel Mu-43 Veteran

    470
    Aug 12, 2010
    NY
    Sure thing, that's why Canon and Nikon are stuck with in-lens stabilization. That's also why Minolta created IBIS when they went digital. I'm still puzzled as to why Sony didn't use it in mirrorless since they already have stabilized sensors in A cameras. Panny probably chose optical stabilization just because they did it for 4/3, so they could reuse the sensor. Either way, for formats designed so well to support MF having IBIS is a huge plus. Unfortunately, Sony didn't do it and I wouldn't expect Pentax to do anything reasonable now that it's in Ricoh's hands. That leaves only Olympus to hold the fort... looks like I'm turning into a fanboy :smile:
     
  12. Promit

    Promit Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 6, 2011
    Baltimore, MD
    Promit Roy
    In fact I like Panasonic's bodies better, but I picked Olympus specifically for IBIS.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  13. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    FWIW...I switched from an E-PL1 with IBIS to a G2 without and I use a fair amount of legacy glass. In the last several months I have been shooting the G2 I don't recall a situation where I have missed having IBIS. It reminds me a lot of anti-lock brakes on my car. I don't mind having it but I don't miss it when I drive a car without them. I learned to drive without anti-lock brakes and I can pump the brakes just fine on my own.
     
  14. Wasabi Bob

    Wasabi Bob Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Might be this ...

    While attending PMA one year I asked this question to one of the Japanese in Panasonic's booth. Though his English wasn't so good, the jist of it was that as you zoom "in lens" stabilization is proportional. More zoom and the OIS becomes more sensitive. Being part of the lens, it certainly makes sense.

    Also, I think part of the decision may go back to Four-Third format. Panasonic had lens with in lens stabilization and Olympus had Four-Third bodies w/o stabilization. Adding a Panasonic lens to the Oly body gave you stabilization.
     
  15. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
    Which brings us back to one of the first questions as to why Panasonic with it's inherent µ4/3 ability to use legacy lenses still chose "in-lens" stabilization....?
     
  16. scarbrd

    scarbrd Mu-43 Regular

    144
    Jul 1, 2011
    Houston, TX
    One reason might be that Panasonic want to give the buyer an incentive to purchase new Panasonic lenses rather than using/buying legacy lenses which doesn't benefit Panasonic in any way. Also, Panasonic don't really have any long time users like Olympus. So, a marketing point for Olympus is to appeal to existing Olympus users with a promise of compatibility to older systems. Like a reward for being a loyal user.

    Panasonic doesn't have that issue as even their full size SLRs are relatively new, so there's no brand loyalty to leverage.

    Olympus' strategy could be to bring in previous OM and Oly AF users, not to mention MF Nikon and Canon users, and sell them on the fact that they can buy into a new system and use their legacy glass with the benefit of IBIS while they transition to a new system.

    Panasonic's strategy: to get the full benefits of IS, you have to spend money now on new lenses, there by increasing sales in the short term.

    Just some random thoughts on possible marketing from both sides.
     
  17. songs2001

    songs2001 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    693
    Jul 8, 2011
    That's actually really easy question to answer. Panasonic had video in its mind and OIS works better with video than sensor shake because the sensor gets hot when using both video and sensor shake at the same time.

    The Olympus for this reason cannot do IBIS until the Ep3.
     
  18. I wouldn't call Canon and Nikon being "stuck" with lens-based image stabilisation. My only Nikon VR experience has been with the 18-200mm which seemed very good and the Canon IS systems work as well or better than any other I've tried.
     
  19. zettapixel

    zettapixel Mu-43 Veteran

    470
    Aug 12, 2010
    NY
    I didn't mean "stuck" in a sense that they don't work well, IS in their lenses is excellent. I mean "stuck" literally, they will never reconsider their approach although there is no technical reason why they can't implement IBIS even with existing lenses, but because they invested in optical stabiliztion too heavily. Young systems, like NEX or :43: might change at least theoretically, but not Canikon.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. songs2001

    songs2001 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    693
    Jul 8, 2011
    I don't think they are stuck in that way either. They break compatibility every once in a while with metering, AI, non AI, D lens, AF-S, G-Type. If IBIS was as good or better than optical IS, I can see them switching.