The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Olympus Pen E-P2 Field Review on LL

Pelao

New member
Speak Human
My thoughts too. I feel that he clearly enjoys these new smaller cameras that offer very high quality images. It's interesting comparing this field report with the one for the GF1.

I suspect that if the GF1 had IBIS he (and a lot of others) would hail it as King...
 

lattiboy

New member
I suspect that if the GF1 had IBIS he (and a lot of others) would hail it as King...
I think this is a very fair statement. I imagine Panny really underestimated the number of people who would be using legacy glass.... or just those who would like the 20mm to be stabilized!
 

Terry

New member
I guess coming from the M8 with no stabilization I don't really feel like I'm missing it.

I haven't really thought to myself if only this were stabilized I could have gotten the shot. typically I find if I need a shutter speed that low there is much greater chance that my subject is moving than me moving.
 
Last edited:

lattiboy

New member
I guess coming from the M8 and with no stabilization I don't really feel like I'm missing it.

I haven't really thought to myself if only this were stabilized I could have gotten the shot. typically I find if I need a shutter speed that low there is much greater chance that my subject is moving than me moving.
This is fair (and I made the same arguments to myself when I had the GF-1), but I've found that when I am shooting in very low light I can generally get solid results bursting 3-4 shots at 1/4 second with the 20mm, which is pretty amazing when you think about it. It's one of those things that you get spoiled with pretty quickly.

All-in-all, I don't really understand NOT doing it at this point in the game. I certainly understand there are some advantages to the in-lens path, but to my knowledge every IS lens has an "off" switch and it doesn't seem to be more costly to do IBIS. I think IBIS has single handedly made the "also rans" in the dSLR world competitive (Sony, Pentax, Oly, ect). If it weren't for IBIS I don't think they'd have made the (admittedly small) strides they have in breaking the CanNikon duopoly.

PS I don't want to derail this thread into another stabilization debate, so I'm sorry if I just did..... :D
 

Terry

New member
No, you didn't derail it and I don't disagree with you. I also do exactly what you do when I worry that I might not be steady. Just switch to burst and I and fire off a couple of shots. If it is clear that lens stabilization is better for video (which I have no idea if it is), then I can see having both. I do own an A900 and sometimes I am pretty shocked at the results I get with their IBIS on my 135 f1.8 lens.

My point was that I don't get as worked up about it as others do. I've also owned Nikon and their prime lenses are generally not stabilized....in fact their new 16-35 is their first wide stabilized lens. I don't think many of the Canon primes are stabilized either.
 

pellicle

New member
I guess coming from the M8 with no stabilization I don't really feel like I'm missing it.

I haven't really thought to myself if only this were stabilized I could have gotten the shot. typically I find if I need a shutter speed that low there is much greater chance that my subject is moving than me moving.
depends, if you photograph people more likely, but I don't mind some subject movement in my people shots, sometimes with everything moving its only the wind which keeps anything still in the exposure.



I guess if this one had IS it would be completely a dud
 

lattiboy

New member
depends, if you photograph people more likely, but I don't mind some subject movement in my people shots, sometimes with everything moving its only the wind which keeps anything still in the exposure.

I guess if this one had IS it would be completely a dud
A lovely shot, but you can always turn IS off if you choose to. I'm not looking to require everybody to use IS, but there just isn't a solid excuse for not having it in camera at this point.
 

pellicle

New member
A lovely shot, but you can always turn IS off if you choose to. I'm not looking to require everybody to use IS, but there just isn't a solid excuse for not having it in camera at this point.
thanks :)

I wasn't meaning to be defending no IBIS ... I'm actually wondering if I'll swap camps from G1 to EP because of (among other things) that issue. I must say though that reprogramming adaptors with focal length to maximisze the benefit of the IBIS does sound a drag.

in the end though I may just keep the G1 because I like so many other things about it (EVF, swivel screen, grip)
 

photoSmart42

New member
I'm not looking to require everybody to use IS, but there just isn't a solid excuse for not having it in camera at this point.
This is true if technology was the only factor determining product feature decisions. If that were true then ALL the new cars being produced would have the same advanced technology features of luxury vehicles.

There are a myriad of other factors involved in making that decision, cost being a major one. While the technology for in-camera IS may be well-understood, the application of it to a new camera product is not trivial, and certainly not without expense. All these decisions are being made within very limited parameters of target price, target margins, etc. Parts cost doesn't translate into a 1:1 relationship to price increases, and more often than not it's a 10:1 or 20:1 relationship in real terms. I'm sure Panasonic did a trade analysis on in-camera IS, and decided to go against it.
 

lattiboy

New member
This is true if technology was the only factor determining product feature decisions. If that were true then ALL the new cars being produced would have the same advanced technology features of luxury vehicles.

There are a myriad of other factors involved in making that decision, cost being a major one. While the technology for in-camera IS may be well-understood, the application of it to a new camera product is not trivial, and certainly not without expense. All these decisions are being made within very limited parameters of target price, target margins, etc. Parts cost doesn't translate into a 1:1 relationship to price increases, and more often than not it's a 10:1 or 20:1 relationship in real terms. I'm sure Panasonic did a trade analysis on in-camera IS, and decided to go against it.

I understand they can't just "throw it in", but it seems like a very odd omission for such a new system (M43). I mean, IBIS has been "standard" in a whole lot of cameras for many, many years now. I've not heard of any reasonable downside to including it. The tech is well established and is clearly within the abilities of much smaller manufacturers like Olympus and Pentax. There's no market price premium for IBIS either.

Also, for a system that has such an amazing ability to use legacy glass it just makes no sense (to me) I'm not privy to their market research, but looking from the outside it seems like an odd choice to make in this day and age.

Lastly, I wouldn't catagorize IBIS as "advanced technology". The lowest end dSLRs from Pentax, Sony, and Olympus have it. It seems a more apt analogy would be a Chevy Malibu having power windows, but the Audi using hand cranks.
 

Diane B

New member
No, you didn't derail it and I don't disagree with you. I also do exactly what you do when I worry that I might not be steady. Just switch to burst and I and fire off a couple of shots. If it is clear that lens stabilization is better for video (which I have no idea if it is), then I can see having both. I do own an A900 and sometimes I am pretty shocked at the results I get with their IBIS on my 135 f1.8 lens.

My point was that I don't get as worked up about it as others do. I've also owned Nikon and their prime lenses are generally not stabilized....in fact their new 16-35 is their first wide stabilized lens. I don't think many of the Canon primes are stabilized either.
I only have one Canon IS lens--and rarely use it. None of my primes are stabilized so I'm just used to shooting with non-IS. That's why, like Terry, I'm probably just not very excited about it one way or the other. If they add it, fine, if not, fine. When i buy my next m4/3rds body I'll consider again, but doubt that would be one of the highest priorities.

When one considers that its possible to use such a variety of MF lenses with m4/3rds and that would/should have been a consideration for IBIS--I just have a feeling that perhaps Panasonic didn't really expect that to be such a major selling point. When I look back at marketing--even now---I still am not sure they see it that way LOL.


Diane
 

Audii-Dudii

Active member
I think this is a very fair statement. I imagine Panny really underestimated the number of people who would be using legacy glass.... or just those who would like the 20mm to be stabilized!
You've just described me, as I own an E-P1 solely because the Panasonic 20mm lens / GF1 combo lacks IS and I really, really dislike bumping the ISO any higher than 100. :-(
 

Terry

New member
You've just described me, as I own an E-P1 solely because the Panasonic 20mm lens / GF1 combo lacks IS and I really, really dislike bumping the ISO any higher than 100. :-(
Well on the E-P2 you should be bumping the ISO higher than 100 and using ISO 200 which has been shown to be better and is the base ISO for the camera.
 

Brian Mosley

New member
That's right - ISO 200 gives you about 1 stop more headroom, at the expense of a little more noise in the shadows.

Cheers

Brian
 
Top