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!
No lock for that expensive EVF is very bad. I'm reminded of how many Olympus diopter corrector eyepieces I lost on old OM bodies.
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.Speak Human
Absolutely.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!I suspect that if the GF1 had IBIS he (and a lot of others) would hail it as King...
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.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.
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 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.
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.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
thanksA 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.
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.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.
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.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.
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. :-(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!
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.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. :-(
I think so too. I have it always to ISO 200.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.
But likely more DR than using 100.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