Olympus IBIS Seems To Still Be The Best

[SpecFoto]

DPR Review TV released their review today on the Canon R6, and Jordon shot the episode with the R5. Jordan said the video IBIS was very good on both, but Olympus was better! Chris only commented on stills with the R6 and said while Canon IBIS was rated for 8 stops...yada...yada, and better than Nikon, Sony and Panasonic, it was not as good as Olympus. He gave a specific example of using a 105mm lens with the R6 in daylight to 1/4 sec. before shake set in, or about 4-1/2 stops. The R5 they used was pre-production and he wanted to test the final version before commenting on it. He did express concern that the R5 stills IBIS might not be quite as good as the R6, due to the 45MP.

https://www.dpreview.com/videos/2834730544/dpreview-tv-canon-eos-r6-review

Way To Go Olympus!

Edit: For Jordon's comment go to 5:15, for Chris go to 8:35.

 

[Lcrunyon]

I’m not surprised. It would be extremely difficult to get a full frame sensor as well stabilized as Olympus’ tech on an m4/3 sensor, much less better. It really does seem like Canon was gunning for Olympus’ niche with their latest announcements. While there are some impressive features, especially with the R5, I still would choose Olympus.

 

[Holoholo55]

Seems like Canon overstated the effectiveness of their IBIS, kinda like Fuji did for the XT4. In a head to head comparison with an EM1 III, the Olympus beat the Fuji. As Mathieu notes, "If we analyse these first results further, we can understand why the CIPA rating doesn’t tell the full story." Different in the real world.
https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/fujifilm-vs-olympus/fuji-xt4-vs-omd-em1-iii-ibis/

 

[Lcrunyon]

While I am sure the R5’s image quality and auto focus are top notch, I don’t really need any more in either of those areas, so it was the 8 stop IBIS claim and the 120 FPS 4K that really made my jaw drop. These claims really seemed to push the envelope, and the former would have been very damaging to Olympus. The R5 still seems really good, but now I’m not as impressed with either.

 

[pdk42]

Seems my hamster is safe!

 

[Reflector]

Better than their direct competition at least but 105mm sounds like the 24-105mm was used, which supports double stabilization.
At least this seems like a less-than-apocalyptic release but 4.5 stops with double stabilization is making me wonder what a normal non IS lens is going to perform like from the body alone.

Blind guess: Halve the numbers for "real world" stops?

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[ouldsmobile]

It's a bit funny. I have seen a few youtube reviews of the new canon cameras and all the features(stabilization, silent shutter, fast framerates[still slower the the EM1's], etc etc) the reviewers seem to be raving about have been in Olympus bodies for years and years. :-/

Makes you wonder.....

 

[Serhan]

I was watching dpreview comparison of EM1 III vs G9 and stabilization at 4:25:
https://www.dpreview.com/videos/134...-mark-iii-who-s-the-king-of-micro-four-thirds
Chris was mentioning he can shoot consistently 1/3sec with EM1 III and 1/4 sec with G9...

When I used EM5 III with Pana 12-32mm, I pushed to 1.6sec (not consistently) vs when I tried SL2+m lens, I managed 1.3 sec indoors with 47MP sensor which most probably using Panasonic IBIS tech. Of course the FF sensor might be harder to stabilize... Hopefully we will see an independent testing from Matheiu with the other cameras... However, I think live nd is more interesting and so far nobody adopted that...

 

[Sleepy Capybara]

Like everyone else - not surprising. What IS surprising though is that he said IBIS is better than Panasonic's (haven't watched the video) - was he mentioning Panasonic's FF bodies or MFT?

 

[connloyalist]

Here is a similar IBIS test for video:

Comparing the E-M1 mark III, GH5, Fuji X-T4 and Sony A6600. Guess who won?

Regards, C.

 

[Ross the fiddler]

Seems like Canon overstated the effectiveness of their IBIS, kinda like Fuji did for the XT4. In a head to head comparison with an EM1 III, the Olympus beat the Fuji. As Mathieu notes, "If we analyse these first results further, we can understand why the CIPA rating doesn’t tell the full story." Different in the real world.
https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/fujifilm-vs-olympus/fuji-xt4-vs-omd-em1-iii-ibis/

But Canon buyers will still swallow that marketing ploy though, even if it isn't as great as they claim.

 

[Holoholo55]

But Canon buyers will still swallow that marketing ploy though, even if it isn't as great as they claim.

Of course.

 

[Ross the fiddler]

It's a bit funny. I have seen a few youtube reviews of the new canon cameras and all the features(stabilization, silent shutter, fast framerates[still slower the the EM1's], etc etc) the reviewers seem to be raving about have been in Olympus bodies for years and years. :-/

Makes you wonder.....

When their first DSLR came with an articulating screen, they did the same, even though Olympus had it for ages before in the E-3 & then E-30 which got lots of flack over it at the time.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

Having owned both a G9 and now a E-M5 mk iii, I can't really tell. I think with Panasonic, more lenses support the dual IS, which feels more noticeable when you engage focus. I suspect the E-M1 mk iii and E-M1X are a cut above the E-M5, so maybe that's where the difference really plays out. Either way, both Olympus and Panasonic do great things with IBIS. It's telling when I zoom to 300mm, and then engage the 3x focus zoom and can still keep a somewhat steady lock on a small subject in handheld. By my math, that's the FF equivalent of 1600mm in my viewfinder and I can actually still take images without needing a tripod.

 

[Serhan]

Sample image sizes are small but 6sec with R6 is impressive. It looks like R5 is harder with higher MP:
https://www.thephoblographer.com/20...ond-exposures-are-easy-after-rf-lens-updates/
https://www.thephoblographer.com/2020/08/01/we-handheld-the-canon-eos-r5-at-105mm-for-over-a-second/

 

[whumber]

But Canon buyers will still swallow that marketing ploy though, even if it isn't as great as they claim.

I don't think it's a marketing ploy but rather just a sign that the current CIPA test is just not a terribly useful metric for modern stabilization systems, there's not even a meaningful metric for video stabilization defined. With that said, the OP's summary, while technically correct, somewhat misconstrued the spirit of the video's comments. The consensus from Chris and Jordan seems to be that Canon is definitely the best FF IBIS and also seems better than anyone other than Olympus. They mention 1/4s at 105mm being around the limit for the Canon, but you have to put that in the context that they also previously made the claim that 1/5s was the limit for the E-M1X + 12-100mm at 25mm; in that context the performance of the Canon seems quite a bit better.

 

[John King]

I don't think it's a marketing ploy but rather just a sign that the current CIPA test is just not a terribly useful metric for modern stabilization systems, there's not even a meaningful metric for video stabilization defined. With that said, the OP's summary, while technically correct, somewhat misconstrued the spirit of the video's comments. The consensus from Chris and Jordan seems to be that Canon is definitely the best FF IBIS and also seems better than anyone other than Olympus. They mention 1/4s at 105mm being around the limit for the Canon, but you have to put that in the context that they also previously made the claim that 1/5s was the limit for the E-M1X + 12-100mm at 25mm; in that context the performance of the Canon seems quite a bit better.

If that's the best they can manage with the E-M1X + 12-100, they ought to check into an aged care facility! I routinely manage critically sharp photos with my E-M1 MkII + 12-100 at slower than that at 100mm ...

[edit] Forgot to mention, I'm 73 y.o. with bad osteoarthritis in my wrists, elbows, shoulders, etc ...

 

[hazydave]

Having owned both a G9 and now a E-M5 mk iii, I can't really tell. I think with Panasonic, more lenses support the dual IS, which feels more noticeable when you engage focus.

The IBIS system was apparently tweaked a bit from the E-M1 Mark II to the E-M1 Mark III, at which point Olympus said "we can go no further". That's also the basis for the system in the E-M5 Mark III. I think the latter Panasonic M43 cameras caught up, and as you say, they do have more in-lens IBIS. Though in my experience, dual image stabilization only really makes much different past 100mm or so.

And then the E-M1 X came out. Olympus changed their gyroscope design, and that's what got them another stop-and-a-half (5.5 in the E-M1 II, 7 in the E-M1 X)... whatever limit they hit was in the gyros. Far as I know, this is only replicated in the E-M1 III. I have both a II and a III and honestly, my IBIS success rate is so high, I don't really see much difference. Maybe I need to push the limits a bit more.

 

[doady]

At least for my hands, I have found Olympus IS claims to be a bit exaggerated also, maybe more like 4-5 stops with E-M1 II + 12-100mm F4. Which is still amazing, but I still wonder about the extra stop they claim for E-M1 III, which was announced only few months after I bought E-M1 II. Extra stop might mean no more tripod even at night, at least for wide angle, which would be revolutionary. Along with handheld hi-res and the AF joystick, maybe it would have been worth the extra $900 CAD or so. But of course, they raised the prices of all the Pro lenses around the same time too, so I would have paid more like $1200 CAD extra.

 

[RS86]

Here is a good test of Nikon Z5 and Canon R5 IBIS. CIPA tests are 3-axis according to Thom Hogan. These guys got nowhere near the claimed IBIS performance, but more like 3-stops for 100 % accuracy.