Olympus firmware updates - August 4, 2020.

whumber

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2017
Messages
640
No indeed it doesn’t. But people are talking like it’s a big fail when it’s actually been shown to be at least equal to its peers.
I'm not sure that's correct though. The mirrorless comparison review seemed to indicate that while the OIS in the Olympus lens is better than the OIS in the Panasonic, the OIS + IBIS of the Panasonic on a G9 was better than the OIS + IBIS* of the Olympus combo. In addition, the other important takeaway is

MirrorlessComparison said:
Using IBIS (1 axis) and the IS of the Olympus lens with the E-M1 III didn’t improve the performance.
 

comment23

mu-43 frequent flyer
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
1,659
Location
Hampshire, UK
Real Name
Simon
I'm not sure that's correct though. The mirrorless comparison review seemed to indicate that while the OIS in the Olympus lens is better than the OIS in the Panasonic, the OIS + IBIS of the Panasonic on a G9 was better than the OIS + IBIS* of the Olympus combo. In addition, the other important takeaway is
From the conclusion of the same article:
MirrorlessComparisons said:
When it comes to stabilisation, the Panasonic is inferior on its own but matches the performance of the Olympus lens when using a Lumix camera compatible with Dual IS
Anyway, we’re nitpicking.
 

Lcrunyon

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 4, 2014
Messages
2,090
Location
Maryland
Real Name
Loren
Apparently, the PL 100-400mm at 400mm is significantly shorter when compared to the Olympus 100-400mm. IIRC, it was only something like 340mm (-ish), according to one video review (I can’t remember which one). If true, that could have an impact on the comparative effectiveness of the IS as well.
 

whumber

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2017
Messages
640
Apparently, the PL 100-400mm at 400mm is significantly shorter when compared to the Olympus 100-400mm. IIRC, it was only something like 340mm (-ish), according to one video review (I can’t remember which one). If true, that could have an impact on the comparative effectiveness of the IS as well.
That's at MFD where it seems to suffer from focus breathing like many telephoto zooms. The new Olympus seems to actually maintain it's focal length to a better degree near MFD though; it definitely seems like the better lens for shooting small birds.
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
24
The dual sync IS situation is confusing to me. I hope there is some more clarifying information about us soon. Will it operate like the PL 100-400 does?

Focus Stacking is nice, but I prefer Bracketing. I also wonder if this means that the 100-400 will not be compatible with Pro Capture Low, since it wasn’t mentioned?

Since I already have the PL 100-400 mm, if dual sync IS and pro capture low are not supported, I won’t be getting this lens.
I would assume that by Focus Stacking Olympus meant Focus Bracketing. You cannot have Focus Stacking without working Focus Bracketing, and Focus Bracketing needs to know details about the lens, hence the update.
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
24
Snap.

FWIW I liked the lens+body IS best in that test but it was very marginal between that and the body IS alone. Either was beyond perfectly acceptable (for those FL’s) in my eyes.
What focal length did you try? It is generally assumed that IBIS is not efficient with long focal lengths as the sensor cannot move enough to compensate for shake.
 

whumber

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2017
Messages
640
I would assume that by Focus Stacking Olympus meant Focus Bracketing. You cannot have Focus Stacking without working Focus Bracketing, and Focus Bracketing needs to know details about the lens, hence the update.
Other way around, all AF lenses are compatible with focus bracketing on the newer OM-D bodies but only certain Olympus lenses are compatible with focus stacking.
 

comment23

mu-43 frequent flyer
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
1,659
Location
Hampshire, UK
Real Name
Simon
That conclusion is a bit odd though because the actual test results show about a 1 stop advantage for the Panasonic combo with the Olympus lens/body maxing out at 1/8s and the Panasonic lens/body maxing out at 1/4s.
It’s hardly conclusive is it. And the test subjects were very constrained by Covid travel restrictions. Based on what we know to date, from a range of sources, I stand by my original statement:
...people are talking like it’s a big fail when it’s actually been shown to be at least equal to its peers...
Until we see results from the general public my conclusion that a that its performance is at least in the same ball park as the PL100-400, whilst obviously not at the same level as the 300/4 PRO.
 

Lcrunyon

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 4, 2014
Messages
2,090
Location
Maryland
Real Name
Loren
It’s hardly conclusive is it. And the test subjects were very constrained by Covid travel restrictions. Based on what we know to date, from a range of sources, I stand by my original statement:

Until we see results from the general public my conclusion that a that its performance is at least in the same ball park as the PL100-400, whilst obviously not at the same level as the 300/4 PRO.
From what I saw of the review videos, I thought the Olympus IS performance looked pretty good for still photos — better than I expected. However, the Olympus dual IS (non-communicating) did have occasional jumps which I think would look very poor for video.
 
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
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom