Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Paul's PAW - First Bloom

Subject: Re: [OM] Paul's PAW - First Bloom
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 23:26:26 -0700
On 5/28/2015 4:48 PM, Mike Gordon via olympus wrote:
...

Or I. S. Moose writes:
<Sure - but - different IS systems do best at different FLs, or may level the 
difference between FLs. It's possible for IS to trump geometry. I have shots of flowers 
where <the same flower, shot at 43 mm and 1/320 in 12-50 macro mode is 
indistinguishable in this regard from 252 mm (500 mm FF eq!) at 1/125. Neither has any 
visible <motion blur.

Point of factoring in the IS ability is well taken--but---Longer FL magnifies 
the effect of some cam displacments so IS would have a harder time taming them.

You make an assumption of inadequacy without evidence.

In round numbers the EM-5 11 IS provides about 3 stops stability over 1/FL rot 
(rule of thumb) on dpreview test at 24mm and 200mm.

That the effectiveness is the same at both FL extremes should be a clue that its design is sufficient to deal with long FL magnification of camera movement. My own experience says it is certainly up to 300 mm. That the camera allows setting FL up to 1000 mm, it's not an unwarranted assumption that that is the design end point. Certainly a couple of quick tests shots with the 500/8 look like the IS worked, but how to tell which parts, I don't know.

One may speculate forever on whether a particular engine will propel a particular car through the 1/4 mile in less than a particular time. But none of that matters after the test has been made. The theoretical speculation must adjust to the experimental results.

It is certainly possible in theory, given adequate motion sensing, sensor movement speed, accuracy and travel, for IS to fully compensate for geometry up to any given design FL. Have you looked at the comparative shots PiitP Moose posted? I suggest that they show a triumph of IS over geometry up to at least 300 mm. I didn't do anything special when I took them, just some shots wandering around an Asiatic botanic garden.

Of note sony does NOT stabilize non system lens that does not report focusing 
distance to cam in x/y planes--thus only 3 axis stabliization.  X/Y displacment 
especially imp't for macro. Any idea if Oly has
5 axis stabilization for lenses on adapters?   I have wondered about that for 
ages.  Anyone?  Speculation welcome.

The OM-Ds have CD AF, so it has the capability to know what parts are in focus. I can imagine a computational system that knows both the actual FL of the lens, and thus the on sensor movement to be expected at infinity focus. By comparing that to the actual movement, your frequently referenced friend, geometry, makes it possible to calculate a focal distance.

What they are actually doing, I have no way of knowing. They say nothing about IS being limited in any way with adapted lenses.

Non Euclidean 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/

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