IBIS vs OSS

[dave92029]

Please assist me to better understand what and where Sony is going With image stabilization.

I own both an A7 and an Olympus E-M5. The Olympus has the 5 axis IBIS which is terrific because None of the Olympus M43 lens have Any image stabilization built in.

I also have the Sony FE 55mm (not stabilized, and I really haven't found that I needed any), plus the 24-70mm & the 70-200mm (both have OSS).

My question is why is Sony building lens with OSS if they are also including IBIS built into the camera body( A7 II) ?
Don't you have to turn off either the image stabilization in either the lens or the camera body? That's what I need to do when I use a Panosonic lens on my Olympic M43 camera body.

Is Sony confused and charging the consumer for features that aren't needed?

 

[dandrewk]

Please assist me to better understand what and where Sony is going With image stabilization.

I own both an A7 and an Olympus E-M5. The Olympus has the 5 axis IBIS which is terrific because None of the Olympus M43 lens have Any image stabilization built in.

I also have the Sony FE 55mm (not stabilized, and I really haven't found that I needed any), plus the 24-70mm & the 70-200mm (both have OSS).

My question is why is Sony building lens with OSS if they are also including IBIS built into the camera body( A7 II) ?
Don't you have to turn off either the image stabilization in either the lens or the camera body? That's what I need to do when I use a Panosonic lens on my Olympic M43 camera body.

Is Sony confused and charging the consumer for features that aren't needed?

No, Sony is not confused or playing the evil conglomerate by overcharging for stuff we don't need.

Really, there is already a lot of data and information on the web regarding the inherent advantages of IBIS, even with lenses that have OSS. With OSS, you get two axis of stabilization. With IBIS and OSS, you get five axis. You will get improvement on your two OSS lenses.

With your 55 (and any other non-OSS or 3rd party lens) you will get IS where you did not have it before. I don't know how you can say "you don't need" stabilization. With IBIS, you can gain at least two stops of hand held usability. IOW, you can probably shoot the FE55, hand held, at 1/13, maybe as low as 1/8.

 

[ggibson]

My understanding overall is that there are advantages and disadvantages to both systems--each has situations where one is better than the other (e.g. OSS performs better at longer focal lengths). So by combining both systems you can have better performance that either one would individually provide.

When combining lens OSS and IBIS in the A7II, Sony automatically disables the pitch/yaw IBIS stabilization because the lens has it already. So the two systems should seamlessly integrate, unlike using a Panasonic m4/3 lens on an Olympus body where the systems do not interact.

 

[dave92029]

I agree, IBIS is a superior system for image stabilization.

So, is Sony building lens with OSS only for the original A7, A7r and A7s bodies? Will they phase out including OSS as more IBIS bodies are introduced?

If you have a body with IBIS, and I expect that it will become standard on all future FE bodies, then OSS is just extra weight, and cost and should be turned off and never used with IBIS body.

Olympus has put a 3 axis IBIS system in their "budget" E-M10, so Sony could do the same with their future "budget FF bodies.

I believe that Sony got IBIS as a result for providing Olympus with a financial tranfusion.

I wish Sony had waited a few months and modified their bodies and lens to take advantage of both the cost and weight saving that Ibis allows.

Maybe the 24-70mm II will be designed w/o oss.

 

[k-hawinkler]

When you make factual statements could you please provide a source of your info!
Otherwise this thread only furthers FUD!

 

[dave92029]

When you make factual statements could you please provide a source of your info!
Otherwise this thread only furthers FUD!

??? what factual statements would you like a source???

Is there really any question that OSS adds cost and weight to a lens?

Since the OSS functions are redundant to the funtions of IBIS, is there any logical reason to continue the redundancy in the future?

 

[Slingers]

Here is an answer from the Sony press release

Additionally, the 5-axis stabilisation works cooperatively with Sony α lenses with optical steady shot (OSS) to provide maximum stabilization and clarity, while also performing admirably with Sony α A-mount lenses and third party lenses3 without on-board stabilization.

I like what Sony has done with the A7II but I prefer OSS so I hope in the future it continues to be used on future e mount lenses.

 

[ecsh]

??? what factual statements would you like a source???

Is there really any question that OSS adds cost and weight to a lens?

Since the OSS functions are redundant to the funtions of IBIS, is there any logical reason to continue the redundancy in the future?

Since the lens used on the A7 series cameras can be used on the formerly called Nex series cameras, which do not have IBIS, then there is reason to continue putting it in lens.

 

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

I do not believe, after reading Sony's guides, that OSS is superfluous with IBIS. As stated by GGibson above, the systems each have advantages and work together seamlessly. I have found my OSS 70-200 in particular to work better on my a7II than on my 17r, shutter shock notwithstanding.
Bill

 

[k-hawinkler]

My understanding overall is that there are advantages and disadvantages to both systems--each has situations where one is better than the other (e.g. OSS performs better at longer focal lengths). So by combining both systems you can have better performance that either one would individually provide.

Really? What are the advantages and disadvantages to both systems? Can you please prove your statements?

As I understand it - please refer to http://www.getdpi.com/forum/617856-post132.html - lens OSS stabilizes pitch and yaw (needs lens focal length for that). As lens OSS cannot be switched off Sony's SSI - their name for IBIS - disables that functionality in the A7II and uses the lens OSS instead. So in that case the A7II still does roll stabilization (does not need lens focal length) and for (presumably) native lenses that convey distance to subject information as well X and Y stabilization. X and Y stabilization is most important for near and close focus photography as their stabilization contribution goes to zero for infinity distance.

For native non-OSS lenses the A7II SSI provides all 5 modes of stabilization, i.e. pitch, yaw, roll, X, and Y.

For third party lenses, without distance to subject information, SSI stabilizes pitch, yaw, and roll - but not X and Y.
In that case one has to manually enter the lens focal length for proper stabilization.

When combining lens OSS and IBIS in the A7II, Sony automatically disables the pitch/yaw IBIS stabilization because the lens has it already. So the two systems should seamlessly integrate, unlike using a Panasonic m4/3 lens on an Olympus body where the systems do not interact.

That seems to be correct. I agree.
In that case you have to switch off one, either the in-lens or in-body stabilization.
Of course, one can always switch off both.

 

[Paratom]

Please assist me to better understand what and where Sony is going With image stabilization.

I own both an A7 and an Olympus E-M5. The Olympus has the 5 axis IBIS which is terrific because None of the Olympus M43 lens have Any image stabilization built in.

I also have the Sony FE 55mm (not stabilized, and I really haven't found that I needed any), plus the 24-70mm & the 70-200mm (both have OSS).

My question is why is Sony building lens with OSS if they are also including IBIS built into the camera body( A7 II) ?
Don't you have to turn off either the image stabilization in either the lens or the camera body? That's what I need to do when I use a Panosonic lens on my Olympic M43 camera body.

Is Sony confused and charging the consumer for features that aren't needed?

Maybe Sony did not know if they would offer a body with image stabi so they did offer lenses which included OSS.
I am sure Sony will make sure the two systems (in body stabi and lens stabi) do not get into conflict.
I much prefer to have stabi in lens and body than to not have it in lens and not have it in body (like Leica T...even though I might prefer the T image quality and simplicity)

 

[ggibson]

Really? What are the advantages and disadvantages to both systems? Can you please prove your statements?

There are certainly advantages and disadvantages to both, historically at least. Here's a good list of the tradeoffs:

https://photographylife.com/lens-stabilization-vs-in-camera-stabilization

Hopefully the fact that we still see both in the market is proof enough that camera manufacturers have see merits to each approach. I rather like Sony's strategy to combine them--theoretically at least, you'd have the best IS system on the market. In practice with the A7ii, I'm not sure if the critics have found that to be true quite yet though.

 

[k-hawinkler]

That article from February 19, 2012 is almost 3 years old.
Immense progress has been made since by Olympus and recently Sony.
So, a new in-depth review and comparison would be timely.

 

[ggibson]

So are you still doubting that there are advantages and disadvantages to both systems?

 

[k-hawinkler]

So are you still doubting that there are advantages and disadvantages to both systems?

Thanks for your feedback. I don't see it that way.

Well, here we go again:

My understanding overall is that there are advantages and disadvantages to both systems--

Well, no, OSS does just pitch and yaw stabilization.
IBIS can do pitch, yaw, roll, X and Y stabilization.

each has situations where one is better than the other

I don't think so. Please, see above!

(e.g. OSS performs better at longer focal lengths).

Really, I have not noticed that. What would be the reason?

So by combining both systems you can have better performance that either one would individually provide.

No, IBIS can do it all - provided lens OSS could be switched off as for Olympus' E-M5/1.
If lens OSS cannot be switched off then SSI has to disable its pitch and yaw stabilization and does the rest, namely roll, X and Y.

I would think a newer version of stabilization of a certain kind should beat an older version of that kind.
AFAIK OSS does only pitch and yaw stabilization.
IBIS does pitch, yaw, roll, X and Y stabilization - provided it gets the required input, namely focal length and distance to subject information.

Please let me know if there is a lens OSS that does more than pitch and yaw stabilization.
I am not aware that there is such an OSS lens.

 

[ggibson]

If IBIS was strictly better, why would Sony have the A7ii utilize the optical yaw/pitch stabilization? That is proof that Sony's IBIS ability to compensate for yaw/pitch is worse than their lens-based system.

Sorry if you discard that article I linked because it is from 2012, but it would answer your question above about the reason that IBIS falls short at longer focal lengths. If you could share your evidence that Sony/Olympus have made "major progress" which makes the advantages/disadvantages in the article obsolete, then I would like to read it.

As a side note, Canon has a lens-based Hybrid IS system that compensates for shift (X/Y) as well as pitch/yaw (I see that they have a 100mm macro and a 24-70/4 which incorporate it at least).

 

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

I don't want to get into the academic discussion because I don't know enough!

But in practical terms if I use my a7 Mark2 (IBIS ON) with the FE 70-200 mm zoom at 200 mm with the OSS turned ON, I get sharper pictures at low shutter speeds than if the OSS is turned OFF.

QED - at least for me!

Bill

 

[k-hawinkler]

If IBIS was strictly better, why would Sony have the A7ii utilize the optical yaw/pitch stabilization? That is proof that Sony's IBIS ability to compensate for yaw/pitch is worse than their lens-based system.

No, it isn't. I have a Sony lens where OSS cannot be switched off on the lens.
So necessarily the OSS functionality of the camera SSI needs to be switched off.
It also doesn't mean that another company's IBIS couldn't be even better.

Sorry if you discard that article I linked because it is from 2012, but it would answer your question above about the reason that IBIS falls short at longer focal lengths. If you could share your evidence that Sony/Olympus have made "major progress" which makes the advantages/disadvantages in the article obsolete, then I would like to read it.

Well, reading that article I get the impression it contains primarily marketing talk from Canikon.
It was written even before the 5-axis IBIS from Olympus was introduced in April 2002 in the E-M5.
So that article doesn't mention Olympus system at all and seems to be completely unaware of it.
I have used Olympus' IBIS starting with the 2-axis stabilization in E-P2, then 5-axis in E-M5 and E-M1.

Here is one of my recent shots, OOC JPG reduced in size, OLYMPUS E-M1 + M.40-150mm F2.8 @ f/5.6, ISO=1600, 150 mm, 1/5 s, handheld!

That's quite an incredible stabilization of Olympus' 5-axis IBIS indeed!
MFT 150 mm focal length is equivalent to 300 mm for 135 film - definitely a tele lens.
I would be amazed if a 2-axis lens-based stabilization could top that!
Maybe it can match it, fine, but top it? I have my doubts!

As a side note, Canon has a lens-based Hybrid IS system that compensates for shift (X/Y) as well as pitch/yaw (I see that they have a 100mm macro and a 24-70/4 which incorporate it at least).

Thanks. I wasn't aware of that. Is there such a Sony lens with OSS?

 

[ggibson]

Which Sony lens can you not turn off OSS? Can't you turn it off using the camera menu? How would someone use such a lens on a tripod???

 

[ptomsu]

Which Sony lens can you not turn off OSS? Can't you turn it off using the camera menu? How would someone use such a lens on a tripod???

I am surprised that Sony lenses do not allow to turn off OSS almost other brands I know do allow that for their stabilized lenses ...