Check out Photo Critique Section section of our forum.
In-Body Stabilization vs. In-Lens Stabilization - which is better?
Sep 26, 2017 22:20:16 #
Anyone know which one costs the manufacturer more to make? Which one, generally, grants the greater amount of f-stops-equating stability?
Sep 26, 2017 22:37:08 #
Sep 26, 2017 22:44:22 #
Cdouthitt wrote:
Olympus has the best ibis. The rest are just followers.
Are the amount of stops equating stability the same on all their models, or does it change from body to body?
Check out AI Artistry and Creation section of our forum.
Sep 26, 2017 22:50:31 #
ChrisT wrote:
Are the amount of stops equating stability the same on all their models, or does it change from body to body?
Changes from body to body. Em1ii is something like 6.5 stops with the 12-100 which also has IS. Without that lens it’s 5.5 stops (I believe).
Sep 26, 2017 22:55:33 #
From personal experience using Canon DSLR (lenses) and Olympus products, the Olympus system is far better.
With Olympus there are improvements in image stabilistaion with new bodies.
With Olympus there are improvements in image stabilistaion with new bodies.
Sep 26, 2017 23:00:30 #
Cdouthitt wrote:
Changes from body to body. Em1ii is something like 6.5 stops with the 12-100 which also has IS. Without that lens it’s 5.5 stops (I believe).
So you use the Olympus 12-100 with its own IS engaged, in conjunction with the IS built into the EM1 II?
I tried that with my Sigma EX 105 OS HSM Macro on my Sony A77II ... it doesn't work very well.
You're better off switching off the OS in the Sigma and just using the IS in the Sony ....
Maybe, Olympus HAS designed their IBIS a little better, then ....
Sep 26, 2017 23:02:52 #
RichardTaylor wrote:
From personal experience using Canon DSLR (lenses) and Olympus products, the Olympus system is far better.
With Olympus there are improvements in image stabilistaion with new bodies.
With Olympus there are improvements in image stabilistaion with new bodies.
Okay, Richard ... do you happen to know whether the stabilization used in all their newer bodies is the same?
Check out Panorama section of our forum.
Sep 26, 2017 23:09:26 #
ChrisT wrote:
Okay, Richard ... do you happen to know whether the stabilization used in all their newer bodies is the same?
No I don't - I don't read gear reviews etc nowdays unless I am in the market to buy something new which is rare.
Sep 26, 2017 23:23:58 #
RichardTaylor wrote:
No I don't - I don't read gear reviews etc nowdays unless I am in the market to buy something new which is rare.
Oh, okay, then ....
Thanks ....
Will do some research on them ....
I tend to think you're better off with in-body stabilization. But, I'm not completely sure.
With each new generation of lenses, IS seems to be better than the previous ....
Sep 26, 2017 23:29:05 #
It is a whole new world for hand held low light photography.
With your permission I can post an example.
With your permission I can post an example.
Sep 26, 2017 23:30:59 #
RichardTaylor wrote:
It is a whole new world for hand held low light photography.
With your permission I can post an example.
With your permission I can post an example.
Oh, sure, Richard ... have at it!
Check out Traditional Street and Architectural Photography section of our forum.
Sep 26, 2017 23:34:28 #
Cdouthitt wrote:
Olympus has the best ibis. The rest are just followers.
Starting to shoot more video at work now.
Wish I had my E-M1 back just for that reason.
The Nikon just isn't as smooth hand-held.
Sep 26, 2017 23:38:12 #
Pentax also has IBIS, but I won't be so bold as to compare it to other products. However, I will make the following comments:
(1) I switched from Pentax to Canon in 1995. IS wasn't available then, but when it was available, I would have had to replace a lens in order to get stabilization for that focal length ... so much for "lenses are forever"
(2) I switched back to Pentax in 2015. Since that new body had IBIS, all of my lenses - including those dating back to 1979 when I purchased my first Pentax camera and K-mount was barely a thing - were instantly stabilized. Since then I have purchased several Super Takumar lenses - a mount Pentax left behind before 1979, and all of them are instantly stabilized also.
(1) I switched from Pentax to Canon in 1995. IS wasn't available then, but when it was available, I would have had to replace a lens in order to get stabilization for that focal length ... so much for "lenses are forever"
(2) I switched back to Pentax in 2015. Since that new body had IBIS, all of my lenses - including those dating back to 1979 when I purchased my first Pentax camera and K-mount was barely a thing - were instantly stabilized. Since then I have purchased several Super Takumar lenses - a mount Pentax left behind before 1979, and all of them are instantly stabilized also.
Sep 26, 2017 23:42:54 #
Two or three of the newest Panasonic bodies combine the in body IS and lens IS for stills, Full HD and 4K. My slightly older GX8 does it for Full HD and stills but not 4K. Can't say if it is better or worse than other brands. At 71, I know I can't hold still as well as I once used to. The Panasonic IS, dual or otherwise, is impressive and fun to use.
Sep 26, 2017 23:43:13 #
ChrisT wrote:
Oh, sure, Richard ... have at it!
Classical concert rehearsal, with very challenging lighting.
Olympus E-M5MarkII (crop factor is 2) with a OLYMPUS M.40-150mm F2.8
f-2.8 (wide open), F= 150.0 mm (300mm (35mm) equivalent), 1/60 @ ISO 12800
No flash and hand held.
Downsized for web publication and a bit of noise reduction applied by using Topaz DeNoise.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.