The topic of in-body vs lens Image Stabilization (IS) has been talked to death, but I thought I would add my two cents. The only camera that I owned, and had in-body IS was the Pentax K10D. Sorry to say, but it was not as effective as I was hoping for, and certainly was not even close to the lens based stabilization of Canon lenses that I am familiar with. After the experience with K10D, I am a bit wary of cameras with in-body IS.
I am sure with newer generations of in-body IS is much better than the first generation that was in the K10D, especially the advanced one found in the Olympus OM-D EM-5. But I feel more confident using lens based IS, as the effect of IS is clearly visible in the viewfinder and I can judge how far I can go before pictures will start to look blurry. I have not used the EM-5, so I can't say how the viewfinder will show the effect of IS. I like the fact that in-body IS will work with ALL lenses attached to the camera, and this is especially useful for lens junkies like me, who uses mostly manual focus lenses. An effective in-body IS system is a godsend. Though I still believe lens based IS is more effective, I really want a camera with in-body IS that's comparable to lens based IS, and currently only the Olympus EM-5 is competitive in this regard.
I am hoping the price of the EM-5 will drop by Christmas, which will push me to buy one :)
Nick Nack - Canon Rebel XSi & EF 100mm f2.8L IS Macro
If you do pick up an OM-D at Christmas, you'll enjoy it. The IBIS is superb and having it in the EVF is a godsend.
ReplyDeleteAfter spending so much time with legacy glass on a G2, I jumped at the chance.
btw, I've greatly enjoyed reading your blog for the past year or so. It's been a pleasure.
Thanks Mike. I look forward to my next M4/3 camera. The Panny G1 is getting a bit long in the tooth.
DeleteDoes the OM-D allow you to dial in the focal length of your adapted lens? Because with no contacts the camera doesn't know which lens is attached and the focal length is one of the two parameters that drive the IS algorithm (the other being the measured acceleration along 2 or 3 axes). Without this information the camera will probably assume 50mm (or some other arbitrary value) and with a much different lens the IS can actually do the exact opposite of what it's supposed to do (i.e. make the image even blurier). This is one major setback for the Sony cameras for example. They do have in body IS which is actually very effective but is useless with adapted lenses for the reason I described...
ReplyDeleteI am sure the OM-D allows focal length to be set. The K10D did and there is no reason why the newer bodies wouldn't.
DeleteIt certainly does, with adapted lenses you can manually select any common focal length up to 1000mm.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the clarification!
DeleteMy Dad's K7 has in-built stabiliser, and, you're right, it doesn't work as well as good stabilised lenses. However I still marvel at the fact that the first Pentax lenses that he bought new in 1960 when he was just 19 (a 55mm f1.8 and a 35mm f3.5)are now stabilised and ready for a new life a D-SLR. That is pretty cool.
ReplyDeleteOne reason I really want to try the OM-D is the 5-axis stabilizer. It's reportedly very close to lens based IS and the effect can be seen in the viewfinder.
Delete