Martino Loc: Northwest Florida

When I was studying photography at university our tutor always and continually stressed us to put the camera on a tripod. It was the only way to avoid camera shake.

Yes modern camera and lens systems have stabilization features which are very useful. However we’ve all be shown how to brace ourselves to hand hold.

Using the flip out screen as a viewfinder will ALWAYS result in some shake because you’re putting the camera on the end of two wobbly sticks - your arms.

The only sure way is to use a tripod, and failing that practice the braced methods described in every ‘how to’ book. Using the flip out screen is an open invitation to camera shake.

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

Although a tripod or monopod would solve a lot of the issues, your wife will still be taking most of her pictures without one. The main problem is your wife's camera design itself, not the stabilization, good or bad.

A camera without an eye level viewfinder must be held far enough in front of your face so you can see what is on it. That means that you cannot brace it against you forehead, a hard stable boney surface, and brace it with your elbows against your body; the most stable handheld position. Show her how to use your camera with the eye level viewfinder and see how she does.

williejoha

Whenever I shoot landscape pictures, or for that matter any picture I always look around to see if there is anything that could be of help. Leaning against a tree, resting on a big rock or whatever. Of course as mentioned above, the typical posture for taking pictures is a given, as are ISO, shutter speed etc. Keep the finger on the release.
WJH

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Neither of those pictures are blurry from camera shake. Both pictures are fine. The difference between the two are mostly that your camera is of higher calibur with larger sensor that is going to give better results. Your wifes camera has a small sensor that isn't going to perform as well as your camera. Also, the two images are of different subjects where hers has a lot more shadows and yours has more highlights. You need to take a picture of the same scene for a better comparison. You might also want to set them both up to shoot using the same kind of settings such as aperture priority. You camera was set that way, but your wifes was set for a more auto setting.

ken_stern Loc: Yorba Linda, Ca

I would not at all argue with this or in fact most of the other suggestions --- What to heck in this case since I don't use this gear he could be right -- However I go back to my original suggestion - use a tripod - It's use - If of course used properly - will for sure eliminate any question of camera shake & will allow the owner to "see" what his & his wife's camera's can actually do -- You know "Is it me or is it the camera" Plus in my experience no matter how steady I am I generally get a better looking photo - at least composition wise - when I take the extra step & use a tripod

Bozsik Loc: Orangevale, California

When you test anything, you will find it more difficult to compare results when you change too many parameters. You have two different subjects, two different, cameras, and two different photographers. If you are attempting to evaluate here stability, take the following photos and compare them first:

1. Fix the settings on your camera so they don't change. You take a picture with it. Hand her the camera and have her shoot the exact same picture.
2 Fix the settings on the other camera, and perform the same test.
You will now be able to see if it is the camera, or the photographer. You may find it was the camera.
This same test can be performed by changing just the shutter speeds/stops, to see how slow of a shutter speed you and she can use and still have sharp images.

Each test you run should only have one parameter change involved. Do the test and repost the results. We can offer better solutions that way. Anyone offering solutions with what you have presented is just guessing and presuming a possible specific problem.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

I lean against stuff or kneel and try to get the highest shutter speed I can, given all the other factors.

therwol Loc: USA

Also trip the shutter after you exhale naturally or hold your breath for a second after you inhale.

Petesfixit Loc: Houston Texas

When I had my nex-5r I bought a $10 magnetic loupe attachment from eBay. Worked great. Perhaps one can be obtained for your wife's camera

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I don't see much evidence of camera shake. What I DO see looks like very slight diffraction limiting of sharpness combined with a different Anti-Aliasing filter on the sensor, and around 25% lower megapixel count.

The sharpening character of these images is also very different. Was there any post-processing involving multiple saves as a JPEG? What was the file quality setting... on the camera and in post-processing if there was any?

I also see a big difference in focal length and lens. You were using a 12-32mm Lumix at 14mm (close to its optimal performance), at 1/800 second and f/8, ISO 400. She was using a 42mm focal length (indeterminate lens, probably the long end of a short kit zoom) at f/7.1 and 1/125, ISO 200. The E-PL1 has three stops of anti-shake IBIS, so I really don't think the shutter speed or hand-held situation is the issue. It COULD be the lens. If it's a typical or early 14-42mm Micro 4/3 zoom, the 42mm end usually is not very sharp. Also, is her lens CLEAN on both front and back elements?

Many older photographers are not aware of the diffraction limiting of sharpness phenomenon. But here it is: As you stop down any lens, at SOME POINT, it starts to introduce diffraction (scattering of light rays coming across the edges of the aperture). As you stop down, diffraction doubles with each f/stop.

Many older photographers who grew up with medium format and large format film cameras also think they need to use small apertures on their Micro 4/3 and APS-C cameras to achieve sufficient depth of field in scenes such as you show here. That is false! Because the lenses are much shorter, depth of field is much greater at wider apertures. I wouldn't use an aperture smaller than f/5.6 for scenes such as you posted.

On Micro 4/3 cameras, diffraction happens at an aperture about TWO STOPS WIDER than on full frame cameras of the same megapixel count. So if you were to plot the MTF curve (sharpness) of a Micro 4/3 lens, it would be sharpest at apertures of f/5.6 and wider. I have three f/2.8 Lumix lenses, and all of them are sharp from f/2.8 to f/5.6, sharpest at f/4, and so soft as to be useless at f/16 to f/22.

One of my favorite tools to use on my Lumix GH4/Lumix lenses is a neutral density filter. It allows me to work at slow shutter speeds needed for video (1/25 for 24 fps "film," 1/30 or 1/60 for HD and 4K "TV" video). It also allows me to use wider apertures for still photography when I want less depth of field.

I would probably do a controlled comparison test of these cameras, using a tripod. Turn off IBIS, use the same lens on both cameras, and photograph the same stationary subject in the same light. Use every aperture on the lens. Then swap lenses and do it again. Compare unadjusted images...

Harvey Loc: Pioneer, CA

YES _ rule #1 when learning to shoot a film SLR years before IS was around - proper bracing of the camera with your hands, arms and body as well as high shutter speed.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Both cameras have the same size sensor.

Bozsik Loc: Orangevale, California

Totally agree. I noticed the same thing. Controlled testing is your best bet.

canon Lee

One thing that has not been mentioned "pressing the shutter to hard"---- use a monopod..

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I keep seeing good but probably irrelevant advice about holding the camera steady, here. The blurry character in this image does not have the usual directional signature of camera shake. Camera shake most often manifests itself as a "smear" in the direction of the actual shake. What I see almost looks like JPEG artifacts and improper sharpening, or an overly aggressive anti-aliasing filter, or the worst end of a cheap zoom lens. The early 14-42mm Lumix and Olympus lenses were okay at the short end, but performance deteriorated rapidly past 30mm.

Someone mentioned retiring the E-PL1. It's definitely old enough to put in the glass case... There are much better options, now!