Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] The reason why we have image stabilization

Subject: Re: [OM] The reason why we have image stabilization
From: "Jim Nichols" <jhnichols@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 19:12:07 -0600
Another data point.  My bird feeder shot that I put up today was made with 
the E-510 on an old Star D metal tripod, and I forgot to turn IS off.  It 
came out just fine.

Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] The reason why we have image stabilization


> On 2/17/2013 7:11 AM, Brian Swale wrote:
>> Ken wrote
>>> http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=2440
>>>
>>> Olympus E-1, Zuiko 100/2
>>   Sorry to say, but I don't fully agree.
>>
>> What is most lacking in that shot is auto-focus. The zone of most-sharp
>> focus is on the handles of the mugs, well away from, and this side of, 
>> the
>> zone of most interest..
>> Manual focus, small mirror, no split-image focus aid ...
>
> I pick on AG's images and verbiage all the time. Here's a chance to defend 
> him. :-)
>
> Seems clear to me that it is carefully focused on the left spigot (teat?). 
> Because it is shot at an angle, the flow from
> there quickly moves out of the DOF, while the DOF catches the right mug 
> handle. The oddly placed plane of focus is a
> result of the camera not being level with and at a right angle to the 
> subject. Pretty much unavoidable in this case,
> I'll bet.
>
> Greater DOF would put the left stream of mud sharper, but also bring in 
> more of the cups. Whether it would be a more
> attractive image with more DOF, I don't know. It is, in any case, a pretty 
> nice image in the super shallow DOF style.
>
>> I remember well on getting the E-1 how much sharper its (hand-held)
>> images were compared with hand-held OM film shots, and I put it down to
>> these factors.
>>
>> 1) Since the lens is already stopped down on the E-1, the exposure 
>> process
>> can not be plagued by the stop-down vibration that the work in 2000-2002 
>> by
>> Gary Reese showed is inherent in the OM system due to the design of the
>> mechanical aspects of Zuiko lenses. And which, apparently Maitani was not
>> aware of.
>> 2) Compared with the OM cameras, the mirror is amazingly lighter ( and 
>> the
>> body comparatively heavier) to the extent that mirror-shutter vibration 
>> is
>> practically undetectable to my hands.
>
> Yes, the weight and bulk of the single digit 4/3 bodies is useful for 
> that.
>
> The Pens and E-M5 have no mirrors, but all suffer from shutter vibration 
> in a certain speed range. The E-M5 apparently
> less than the Pens, and with a way to tame it. What is not clear is 
> whether hand holding damps the vibration, as it
> tends to do on the OMs. The tests I've seen use tripods, and so could be 
> subject to the same limitations as Gary's
> tests. The problems he found with the modest telephotos don't show up hand 
> held, at least not to near the same extent.
>
> Where is IBIS in this list? A major contributor, I think. Hand holding 
> damps most aperture/mirror/shutter vibration on
> OMs, so IS is almost certainly part of the improvement you noticed.
>
>> The same can not be said of the E-3,
>> in my opinion, and for which image quality can suffer even when on a 
>> tripod,
>> if IS is turned off. I discovered this on close examination of the many
>> exposures I took of the line of autumn poplars ( Chard Farm vineyard). To
>> my surprise my hand-held shots ( IS on) were sharper than my tripod shots
>> with the same gear, (but with IS off, as per Olympus recommendations).
>
> Live a little on the wild side - try tripod with IS on. Many people have 
> found this to work well, especially with less
> than completely solid tripods. Oly has the same advice for the E-M5. My 
> casual tests say it makes little or no
> difference. Where I thought I could see some difference, it was in favor 
> of keeping IS on.
>
>> 3) Image quality with the E-1 is improved in my opinion, if the old 
>> standard
>> tripod procedure of auto-delayed exposure is used.
>
> I would expect that to be true of pretty much any camera. The question is 
> whether all that time and effort avail
> anything more than using the IS, hand-held or on tripod. MIGHT help with 
> Pens, depending on how the tripod interacts
> with the shutter vibration.
>
> Nickel (Inflation) Moose
>
> -- 
> What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
> -- 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
> 


-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz