Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 29 of 29

Thread: IBIS vs OSS

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Escondido, CA
    Posts
    50
    Post Thanks / Like

    IBIS vs OSS

    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?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Marin County, CA
    Posts
    593
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IBIS vs OSS

    Quote Originally Posted by dave92029 View Post
    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.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  3. #3
    Senior Member ggibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    743
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IBIS vs OSS

    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.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/grahamgibson/
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Escondido, CA
    Posts
    50
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IBIS vs OSS

    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.

  5. #5
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    3,296
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IBIS vs OSS

    When you make factual statements could you please provide a source of your info!
    Otherwise this thread only furthers FUD!
    With best regards, K-H.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Escondido, CA
    Posts
    50
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IBIS vs OSS

    Quote Originally Posted by k-hawinkler View Post
    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?

  7. #7
    Senior Member Slingers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    457
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IBIS vs OSS

    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.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  8. #8
    Senior Member ecsh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Tax State
    Posts
    549
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IBIS vs OSS

    Quote Originally Posted by dave92029 View Post
    ??? 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.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  9. #9
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Bill Caulfeild-Browne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, Canada
    Posts
    2,534
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    184

    Re: IBIS vs OSS

    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

  10. #10
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    3,296
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IBIS vs OSS

    Quote Originally Posted by ggibson View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by ggibson View Post
    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.
    With best regards, K-H.

  11. #11
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IBIS vs OSS

    Quote Originally Posted by dave92029 View Post
    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)

  12. #12
    Senior Member ggibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    743
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IBIS vs OSS

    Quote Originally Posted by k-hawinkler View Post
    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-sta...-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.

  13. #13
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    3,296
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IBIS vs OSS

    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.
    With best regards, K-H.

  14. #14
    Senior Member ggibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    743
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IBIS vs OSS

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

  15. #15
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    3,296
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IBIS vs OSS

    Quote Originally Posted by ggibson View Post
    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by ggibson View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by ggibson View Post
    each has situations where one is better than the other
    I don't think so. Please, see above!

    Quote Originally Posted by ggibson View Post
    (e.g. OSS performs better at longer focal lengths).
    Really, I have not noticed that. What would be the reason?

    Quote Originally Posted by ggibson View Post
    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.
    With best regards, K-H.

  16. #16
    Senior Member ggibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    743
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IBIS vs OSS

    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).

  17. #17
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Bill Caulfeild-Browne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, Canada
    Posts
    2,534
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    184

    Re: IBIS vs OSS

    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

  18. #18
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    3,296
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IBIS vs OSS

    Quote Originally Posted by ggibson View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by ggibson View Post
    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!

    Quote Originally Posted by ggibson View Post
    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?
    With best regards, K-H.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  19. #19
    Senior Member ggibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    743
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IBIS vs OSS

    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???

  20. #20
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IBIS vs OSS

    Quote Originally Posted by ggibson View Post
    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 ...

  21. #21
    Senior Member pegelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IBIS vs OSS

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    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 ...
    You don't have to be surprised, you can turn off in-lens OSS with Sony lenses. Only it's an option in the menu, not a switch on the lens itself.

  22. #22
    Senior Member pegelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IBIS vs OSS

    @ k-hawlinker: the way I see these systems is as a tool that increases the probability to get a sharp shot, not a 100% yes/no. The further you're away from 1/focal length the lower the probability. So it's not so much "can this system achieve a sharp shot with 1/5th sec and 300 mm" but "what's the ratio of sharp ones vs. unsharp ones" when taking a large series.

    The shot you show is impressive, but as such (without more elaborate testing) it doesn't prove a lot. It only shows it is possible, which is a good thing, but not more than that.

    It's very hard to say which one is "better", it even depends on what you're used to. So I just live with what the camera/lenses give me and just try to get as little camera shake as possible in my shots.
    My Pics
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  23. #23
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    3,296
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IBIS vs OSS

    AFAIK some Sony OSS lenses have a switch, others don't - but one can switch off stabilization in the menu.
    However, that can create a problem if one wants to directly compare lens OSS with Sony's version of IBIS, called SSI.
    With best regards, K-H.

  24. #24
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    3,296
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IBIS vs OSS

    Quote Originally Posted by pegelli View Post
    @ k-hawlinker: the way I see these systems is as a tool that increases the probability to get a sharp shot, not a 100% yes/no. The further you're away from 1/focal length the lower the probability. So it's not so much "can this system achieve a sharp shot with 1/5th sec and 300 mm" but "what's the ratio of sharp ones vs. unsharp ones" when taking a large series.

    The shot you show is impressive, but as such (without more elaborate testing) it doesn't prove a lot. It only shows it is possible, which is a good thing, but not more than that.

    It's very hard to say which one is "better", it even depends on what you're used to. So I just live with what the camera/lenses give me and just try to get as little camera shake as possible in my shots.
    Many thanks. I agree with you.
    I just have a hard time when someone categorically states that for long teles in-lens stabilization is superior to in-body stabilization.
    Both forms of stabilization have significantly improved over the years.

    What I also like about IBIS is that it brings image stabilization to an entire set of non-stabilized manual lenses, e.g. from Leica, that also helps with manual focusing.
    With best regards, K-H.

  25. #25
    Senior Member pegelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IBIS vs OSS

    Quote Originally Posted by k-hawinkler View Post
    ....
    I just have a hard time when someone categorically states that for long teles in-lens stabilization is superior to in-body stabilization.
    Both forms of stabilization have significantly improved over the years.
    Fully agree, but somewhere in 2006 I did a test with a friend of mine.

    I used a Konica Minolta 5D (with in-body SSS) coupled with a 100-400 APO zoom at 400 mm and he used a Canon body (forgot which one, but not important) with an in-lens stabilized 100-400 Canon lens at 400 mm. So both lenses used at ~600 mm effective length at 24x36 mm film size.

    We both took 40 shots handheld at 1/125th and 40 shots handheld at 1/25th. We both achieved roughly the same amount of sharp shots. Obviously the ratio of sharp shots at 1/125th was higher then at 1/25th.

    Then we switched camera's and did the same test and we got again about the same ratio of sharp shots, but we both scored significantly less sharp shots then with our own camera.

    So our conclusion from this test was twofold:
    - Not much difference between in camera SSS of the KM5D and in-lens AS of the Canon 100-400 zoom lens
    - You get the best results with the system you're used to (I almost got seasick from the stabilized viewfinder and he didn't get along with the SSS indicator in the viewfinder)

    Obviously this is all with technology from the years shortly after the millennium switch, but I would be surprised to find grossly different results if we would repeat such a test with today's cameras.
    My Pics
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Marin County, CA
    Posts
    593
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IBIS vs OSS

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    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 ...
    The FE70-200 has an on-camera switch to deactivate OSS.

    "Almost all other brands" lenses have such switches, but only those with longer focal lengths, which more often require mounting the camera/lens on a tripod.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  27. #27
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: IBIS vs OSS

    Quote Originally Posted by k-hawinkler View Post
    Many thanks. I agree with you.
    I just have a hard time when someone categorically states that for long teles in-lens stabilization is superior to in-body stabilization.
    Both forms of stabilization have significantly improved over the years.

    What I also like about IBIS is that it brings image stabilization to an entire set of non-stabilized manual lenses, e.g. from Leica, that also helps with manual focusing.
    I'm right with you K-H - and your shot with the 40-150 Zuiko doesn't surprise me at all.

    It's conceivable (just) that OSS is better with long focal length lenses, but I'm unconvinced. For everything else IBIS is a no-brainer, my early impressions with the A7ii is that it isn't quite as good as the E-M1, but it's damned close

    Just this guy you know
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  28. #28
    Senior Member ggibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    743
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IBIS vs OSS

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    It's conceivable (just) that OSS is better with long focal length lenses, but I'm unconvinced. For everything else IBIS is a no-brainer, my early impressions with the A7ii is that it isn't quite as good as the E-M1, but it's damned close
    Yeah, I have been wondering what people's experiences have been with these two. Are your impressions based on video or stills (or both)?

  29. #29
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: IBIS vs OSS

    Quote Originally Posted by ggibson View Post
    Yeah, I have been wondering what people's experiences have been with these two. Are your impressions based on video or stills (or both)?
    Hi There
    only stills I'm afraid

    Just this guy you know

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •