IS and focal length

[pellicle]

Hi

as far as I understand it, IS makes a bigger difference to wide angle than it does to telephoto. I guess that is true across "in body" equally to "lens based".

so with none of the Panasonic wide angle lenses having IS (like the 7-14) I was wondering if any EP-x users out there might like to comment how well the IBIS works with these more wide angle lenses (7-14, 9-18)

 

[Tullio]

Hi
as far as I understand it, IS makes a bigger difference to wide angle than it does to telephoto. ...

Hum, I don't agree with that. The longer the FL, the more crucial IS becomes because every little movement of the camera is magnified x number of times. When shooting wide angle, camera shake is a lot more controllable and IS does not play a big part.

 

[lattiboy]

Tullio is right. IS does indeed help even with super WA, but it's much, much, much more useful above 20mm (M43 20mm, normal 40mm)

 

[pellicle]

Hi

Hum, I don't agree with that. The longer the FL, the more crucial IS becomes because every little movement of the camera is magnified x number of times. When shooting wide angle, camera shake is a lot more controllable and IS does not play a big part.

I'm not clear what you don't agree with, but I feel the same, that as the lens becomes more telephoto I feel that IS is more needed. However I based my estimation on the data reported by dpreview. If you examine their tests of various IS lenses you will notice that the IS is less effective as the focal lenght increases.

Since these are zooms, and not fixed tele lenses such as the Canon EF IS range perhaps that makes a difference (NB that a lens which is specifically designed for a focal length may have more room to move elements in the compensation of this). Canon also makes IS binoculars, and has done for over 10 years, this also may be a factor.

Do you have information and experience you could share?

 

[clark666]

The longer the focal length, the better IS works:

http://wrotniak.net/photo/43/e510-is.html

 

[pellicle]

Hi

The longer the focal length, the better IS works:
http://wrotniak.net/photo/43/e510-is.html

thanks, interesting report. I have read his other stuff on 4/3 when researching a 4/3 camera for my father in law but didn't spot that.

He mentions some uncertainty in his evidence with respect to the findings of other testers, but stands by his findings for his methods. I happen to like him as a tester and reviewer.

He makes an interesting and informative point:

as the process is based on frequency analysis of the detected camera shake (Olympus says from seven down to below one hertz), its effectiveness will depend on the nature of that shake

which is helpful as the purpose of my wondering is to understand how well a E-P2 with a 300mm lens would do with its IS. The lens is heavy but the the telephoto significantly amplifies jitter, further I don't know how well the camera will be able to measure the jitter with its sensor being camera mounted.

Perhaps there is a side benefit of IBIS and that is perhaps a benefit to the accuracy of AF (on CDAF systems).

I guess that I will need to get an E-P2 to answer this question with my lens.

Thanks

 

[PeterB666]

I have found that there is no significant difference between the in-body IS and lens based IS. I have the Olympus E-P1 and the Panasonic 45-200mm zoom.

I find the in-body IS quite effective with the 14-42mm Olympus zoom too, as well as a collection of old manual lenses from Olympus (OM) and Schneider.

The only lens that I have which is a bit patchy with the in-body IS is the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 which doesn't seem to gain a huge amount with the in-body IS. I cannot think of any logical reason for this.

 

[lattiboy]

The only lens that I have which is a bit patchy with the in-body IS is the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 which doesn't seem to gain a huge amount with the in-body IS. I cannot think of any logical reason for this.

Huh, I noticed the same thing. It seems as though it isn't much help at all with that lens, yet the 14-42mm at 20mm is indeed helped quite a bit with IS. I wonder if it's an evil Panasonic plot!!?!!??!

 

[pellicle]

Thanks guys

as I mentioned above all this is about me determining if the G1 or the E-P2 is a better brick in my hands. I'm intending to do some sports work with the FD300f4 in a few months and wondering if IBIS of the EP is worth the switch (and I'm also wondering if I'd be happier with the E-Px design for a daytrip snapshot camera with the 17mm as the main lens and the EVF in the pack somewhere just incase its needed. Ohh ... and movies tossed in.

Aside from handling differences I think there's little between any of these cameras except the IS strategy.

 

[dhsimmonds]

Thanks guys

as I mentioned above all this is about me determining if the G1 or the E-P2 is a better brick in my hands. I'm intending to do some sports work with the FD300f4 in a few months and wondering if IBIS of the EP is worth the switch (and I'm also wondering if I'd be happier with the E-Px design for a daytrip snapshot camera with the 17mm as the main lens and the EVF in the pack somewhere just incase its needed. Ohh ... and movies tossed in.

Aside from handling differences I think there's little between any of these cameras except the IS strategy.

Well the Oly does also sport a very effective anti dust system!

 

[pellicle]

thought the Panasonic did too

Well the Oly does also sport a very effective anti dust system!

from this page:

New 12.1 megapixel (effective) Four Thirds format CMOS sensor with SSWF dust reduction system

 

[Tullio]

I'm not clear what you don't agree with, ...

I don't agree that "IS makes a bigger difference to wide angle than it does to telephoto".

 

[compositor20]

try to see in your settings if the focal leght is 40mm and not 50mm as is the default in my camera with the 20mm f1.7 that setting in the image stabilizer options get better with the IS in e-p1

you can get shar images of unmving subjects at 1/15 and morea reasonalby at 1/20

1/13 its still possible but 1/10 no

 

[Tullio]

try to see in your settings if the focal leght is 40mm and not 50mm ...

I believe the FL setting for IS only applies to MF lenses since the camera can not determine the FL electronically, otherwise it will select the FL automatically. Now, if you completely turn off AF (by selecting MF), then the FL chosen for IS will play its role.