Seven Stops of Stabilization!!! .... A year ago, people were citing it was an impossible feat! (Page 2): Thanks, Jim … I already have the Interview page up, and was reading it when you...

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

JimH123 wrote:

This is the first I have considered this. If you ... (show quote)

Thanks, Jim … I already have the Interview page up, and was reading it when you "rang" ….
I will take a look at the DPReview page, once it finishes loading. Thanks for the link.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Chris T wrote:

Thanks, Jim … I already have the Interview page up, and was reading it when you "rang" ….
I will take a look at the DPReview page, once it finishes loading. Thanks for the link.

Here is the actual quote - which dates back to September 20th, 2016 -

AW: Can we talk about the E-M1 Mark II’s new IS system. How well does it work with and without IS lenses?
SK: The in-body stabilisation itself gives 5.5 steps, and the Sync IS gives 6.5 steps with OIS lenses. 6.5 stops is actually a theoretical limitation at the moment due to rotation of the earth interfering with gyro sensors.

Read more at https://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/photo-news/exclusive-interview-setsuya-kataoka-olympus-95731#6mcgHrH7FFiHRGib.99

CO

Chris T wrote:

Earlier, C … CO pointed out when one employs ILIS and IBIS together, one cancels out the other.

So - what makes the Panny and Oly cameras so special? … Is it related to the smaller format, or no?

I didn't say that they cancel each other out. I read that there is no increase in stabilization. With Olympus it apparently goes from 5.5 stops for IBIS to 6.5 stops for IBIS + ILIS.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

CO wrote:

I didn't say that they cancel each other out. I read that there is no increase in stabilization. With Olympus it apparently goes from 5.5 stops for IBIS to 6.5 stops for IBIS + ILIS.

CO - indicating a combination of ILIS and IBIS - does NOT increase stops of stabilization - is tantamount to saying: each gets in the way of the other. Ergo, they cancel each other out. It's the same result, do you see?

The E-M1X is said to INCREASE that further with certain ILIS lenses, achieving a total of 7.5 stops, overall.

TomV Loc: Annapolis, Maryland

The rotation of the earth impact on the gyros is interesting. The force of gravity is a constant in a known direction. The tangential force imparted on a gyro depends on the direction the camera is pointing to relative to the direction of rotation. The force is also greatest at the equator and lessens as you get closer to the axis of rotation (poles). Though I am not an expert in gyros, I can appreciate the subtleties of tolerance issues that must be accounted for for something as precise as camera stabilization.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

TomV wrote:

The rotation of the earth impact on the gyros is i... (show quote)

So, Tom - if you want to achieve the greatest amount of stops of stabilization capability, either live at the North Pole, or someplace on Antarctica, is that it, Tom?

Have to get some warmer clothing, together, then, Tom …

I wonder what effect extreme cold has on the lenses, though … kinda full circle situation, here - huh?

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Keep in mind there maybe other alternatives which provide much better stabilisation than in camera stabilistion, and maybe a lot cheaper.
Also keep in mind image stabilistion will not help with subject movement.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

RichardTaylor wrote:

Keep in mind there maybe other alternatives which provide much better stabilisation than in camera stabilistion, and maybe a lot cheaper.
Also keep in mind image stabilistion will not help with subject movement.

As I am sure you are aware by now, Richard … as we age, we shake a little more than we did, when we were younger, and this "trembling" - if you like - is transmitted to the BODY of any camera we hold. Thus, ILIS - being concentrated in the lens, rather than the body - has little effect on the body in our hands. It only keeps the barrel steady. This is why, it is important to use an IBIS body, if one's a little older. If one can also combine that with ILIS - one should be in 7th Heaven!!!!

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Chris T wrote:

As I am sure you are aware by now, Richard … as we... (show quote)

Not if you are using a tripod, or using very high shutter speeds.
I am very well aware of the advantages of image stabilisation and it does give you a lot more options when shooting hand held, however it is not a cure for everything.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

RichardTaylor wrote:

Not if you are using a tripod, or using very high shutter speeds.
I am very well aware of the advantages of image stabilisation and it does give you a lot more options when shooting hand held, however it is not a cure for everything.

Richard … if you are shooting using very high shutter speeds, you are closing down some of your available light. You can compensate by raising your ISO threshold - but as you do that, you will induce greater noise.

It seems to me - every advantage one can give oneself - the better off you are …

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Chris T wrote:

Richard … if you are shooting using very high shutter speeds, you are closing down some of your available light. You can compensate by raising your ISO threshold - but as you do that, you will induce greater noise.

It seems to me - every advantage one can give oneself - the better off you are …

Ever shot a bee in flight or birds in flight, where you want to freeze the action?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

RichardTaylor wrote:

Ever shot a bee in flight or birds in flight, where you want to freeze the action?

Sure, Richard … but you're talking about B&BIF …. an entirely different scenario from most of the things I shoot. Most of the time, you want to keep the shutter speed low - as low as you can manage - above your own shake threshold … which could be 1/20th, or 1/30th, or 1/60th, or 1/80th, or 1/125th … the lower you can manage - the greater your DOF will be. And, in most instances - that's what it's all about - achieving the best DOF possible - in all landscape pics, and things of that nature. Anything you do to inhibit the greatest amount of DOF possible - is going to be to your detriment, overall …

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Chris T wrote:

Sure, Richard … but you're talking about B&BIF... (show quote)

Re depth of field - I feeel that is an incrediby misleading statement. It all depends on what you are trying to achieve. Have you ever isolated a subject by use of DOF?
I must admit with 'scapes I am usually looking for a fair amount of DOF, but not always (and it may be light dependant).

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

RichardTaylor wrote:

Re depth of field - I feeel that is an incrediby misleading statement. It all depends on what you are trying to achieve. Have you ever isolated a subject by use of DOF?
I must admit with 'scapes I am usually looking for a fair amount of DOF, but not always (and it may be light dependant).

It was a reference to 'scapes, Richard - as you call 'em - which require max. DOF, don't they?

Isolation - is more for portraits, AGAINST 'scapes … which is an entirely different scenario - AGAIN!

It'd be good, Richard … if we were both on the same 'length … know what I mean?

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Chris T wrote:

It was a reference to 'scapes, Richard - as you call 'em - which require max. DOF, don't they?

Isolation - is more for portraits, AGAINST 'scapes … which is an entirely different scenario - AGAIN!

It'd be good, Richard … if we were both on the same 'length … know what I mean?

No they don't.