Panasonic: why not in-body image stabilization?

<p>Godfrey I wish you would stop contradicting yourself, just for the sack of a barney.</p>

<p>You first of all claim that you need fast lenses because you need , "in most cases" to to stop motion and your solution is "faster lenses".</p>

<p>Now you are saying ISO 100 is "too sensitive" and you are "often" using ND filter. If 80% of your photos are wider than F4 and you are having to use filter, why not stop down to 5.6?</p>

<p>So, make up your mind, in most cases their is too little light, and often there is too much. Makes no sense.</p>

<p>I wish you would make your mind up - I often get the impression with your posts that you have difficulty keeping track of who you are disagreeing with at any particular time. Often, it is yourself.</p>

<p>@ William:<br>

Ad hominem arguments like this are so stupid.</p>

<p>The purpose of image stabilization is to <em>reduce camera motion</em>. It does not affect how much light there is, or depth of field, of any of the other important things I need to consider that you allege "contradict" my statements.</p>

<p>I need to stop the motion of subjects and control focus and DoF, all within the exposure times that allow holding my lens/camera assembly still enough that its motion does not add undesireable blurring to my photograph. In most cases, image stabilization does not offer a solution that helps in achieving this, sometimes it does and is at those times quite useful. That is what I have stated, over and over again, without contradiction. </p>

<p>I use ND filters frequently because I want/need the shallow DoF afforded by a fast lens wide open and ISO 100 is too sensitive to allow me to capture the scene with the exposure time I want, or is simply too sensitive to allow me to capture at all without overexposure. Stopping down affects the relationships of what is in focus and what is out of focus. Moving outside of a particular realm in exposure time will either not allow me to use fill flash, or stops the subject's motion too completely (some subject motion is often desirable, camera motion only rarely is), or is simply beyond the camera's ability. At the same time I need to keep the camera still too, which might include using a tripod, or IS, or a just good breathing routines... </p>

<p>Is that too difficult a concept to understand? Surely you can imagine that there are diverse circumstances and scenes one might wish to photograph where different kinds of camera settings are needed? One cannot always set the lens to f/5.6 or f/8 and ride the image stabilization while spinning ISO sensitivity to astronomical heights to obtain a useable photograph.</p>

<p>What is <em>"the sack of a barney"</em> anyway? </p>

 

<p>deleted redundant response.</p>

<p>where is the ad hominem argument?</p>

<p>you still fail to see your contradictions. You use terms like "most cases" and "often" with abandon.</p>

<p>You also mention the focal lengths you are using. Well, shooting distances other than straight up against the barrel, the extra f-stop or two makes no damned difference to the depth of field other than making the whole scene look soft. (you know you could hyper focus to control the depth of field with smaller apertures.<br>

Maybe you can point to one of the 80% of shots that required a fast aperture because of motion and DOF factors? I'd be interested to see what sort of photos you are taking that requires such precise parameters. (your portfolio shots, I must say very good, look like they could be shot at f8 with absolutely no effect on DOF). Likewise the vast majority of photography shot with say a 50mm lens can be shot at F5.6 (and say F4 on a 24mm) and still retain back to front sharpness; OR have shallow depth of field, depending on where the focus is.</p>

<p>And yes, I do know there are diverse situations where people need F2 or faster. I just don't recognise those instances in your descriptions or your work.</p>

<p>cheers,</p>

<p>If you can't recognize when you go to an ad hominem mode of argumentation, I'm not your instructor. </p>

<p>I am not sure what you mean when you say "my portfolio". I post work to at least five or six different places on the web, what's on photo.net is only a little smattering of work as I don't use this site for much other than conversation. Sorry if I'm not going to spend any time preparing and posting new work for your education. </p>

<p>Returning to the discussion of in-camera image stabilization and how it could relate to m4/3 format Panasonic cameras, as you all know, one of the advantages of m4/3 format is that that there are adapters for using all kinds of legacy lenses from various vendors. In-camera stabilization would make this feature even more useful.</p>

<p>@ Alan:</p>

<p>It is useful for that, although ... I have bought lenses to adapt to the Panasonic G1 because they were <strong>fast</strong>, and there weren't any fast lenses of that focal length available in FourThirds or Micro-FourThirds mount, not for any other particular reason (other than to have fun). Which puts me right back in the <em>"IS is useful occasionally but non-essential..."</em> game. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's just more vital to video work...it's a shame because I'd love to put the Olympus SWD F2 zooms on a GH1 for video work</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am not sure I follow that point Gary. Would it not be possible to get full compatibility with the GHI and the Olympus SHG grade zooms, or almost compatibility, I am never sure of that business. If you use a fluid head tripod as any movie maker will do, then image stabilization becomes something nice but not at all necessary. Please help me understand more. Thanks. I look forward to the G series and I would love to try my hand at video again. And, if my ship comes in, maybe get one SHG silent motor f 2 yummy priced lens...any more you can add on the above quote. Second question, does the limited f stops on the GH 1 kit lens you feel "crowd" you a lot in your movie making? Or just in some light situations? Never seen that lens and GH1 beast in person...ou here in MIDPAC I mean. Your results show no limits in my opinion, Are there some you feel confine you in real world shooting of video?</p>

<p>Lens stabilization has its advantages. Even in a mirrorless system, IBIS does not stabilize the image in the viewfinder. Lens stabilization does. Lens stabilization also works in video. It doesn't with IBIS. IBIS supposedly would burn out if used constantly as would be needed to stabilize viewfinder images and video. That is why neither olympus nor any other company I am aware of uses it for those purposes.</p>