If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
For those of us not in the know, can you explain what we are looking at here, whhat are the legends?
OK
The vertical scale is DXO's BXU (Blur Experience Unit), which is a kind of proprietary measure of sharpness. This is measured by photographing a special DXO Analyzer test tartget. The images are then analysed by the computer (no human involvement or error!).
The horizontal scale is simply the exposures from 1-62 in this case, all hand held and shot one at a time, not using continuous shooting. In this case, a Panasonic DMC-L1 DSLR with the Vario Elmarit 14-50 lens (which incorportaes Panasonic's Mega OIS system) was used, manually focussed, to avoid AF errors. The lens was set to 50mm (100mm equivalent) and the aperture was (from memory) f/10, so no chance of focus variability as depth of field would cover my slight forward movements.
The shutter speed was 1/15th second.
The first 20 shots were taken with the IS system switched off. Then the middle 20 were taken with OIS on in Mode 1 (continuous IS). The remaining 22 shots were taken with OIS on in Mode 2 (IS only activates when the shutter is released).
The data tends to confirm Panasonic's advice that Mode 2 is preferable to Mode; as you can see there is less variability in Mode 2.
I've also been testing another IS DSLR lens (Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L IS) and some moving sensor IS-equipped bodies (Sony Alpha A100, Pentax K10D and the new Olympus E-510). The Panasonic data above is the first set of results I've looked at.
I think we all knew that IS does work - but the difference between Mode 1 and 2 is interesting and it will be interesting to compare the effectiveness of in-lens and in-camera IS systems.
I have also been testing a couple of compacts: the Canon Ixus 950is and the Panasonic FX30.
The vertical scale is DXO's BXU (Blur Experience Unit), which is a kind of proprietary measure of sharpness. This is measured by photographing a special DXO Analyzer test tartget. The images are then analysed by the computer (no human involvement or error!).
The horizontal scale is simply the exposures from 1-62 in this case, all hand held and shot one at a time, not using continuous shooting. In this case, a Panasonic DMC-L1 DSLR with the Vario Elmarit 14-50 lens (which incorportaes Panasonic's Mega OIS system) was used, manually focussed, to avoid AF errors. The lens was set to 50mm (100mm equivalent) and the aperture was (from memory) f/10, so no chance of focus variability as depth of field would cover my slight forward movements.
The shutter speed was 1/15th second.
The first 20 shots were taken with the IS system switched off. Then the middle 20 were taken with OIS on in Mode 1 (continuous IS). The remaining 22 shots were taken with OIS on in Mode 2 (IS only activates when the shutter is released).
The data tends to confirm Panasonic's advice that Mode 2 is preferable to Mode; as you can see there is less variability in Mode 2.
I've also been testing another IS DSLR lens (Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L IS) and some moving sensor IS-equipped bodies (Sony Alpha A100, Pentax K10D and the new Olympus E-510). The Panasonic data above is the first set of results I've looked at.
I think we all knew that IS does work - but the difference between Mode 1 and 2 is interesting and it will be interesting to compare the effectiveness of in-lens and in-camera IS systems.
I have also been testing a couple of compacts: the Canon Ixus 950is and the Panasonic FX30.
Ian
Thanks for the explanation Ian
Of course, scientifically speaking, you really need the camera automated, with regular movement, as your hand could have potentially shaken differently with each phase.
I reckon next time, stick yer washing maching on a long spin cycle, and retest...thus removing any human error at all.
My recently acquired Canon 100-400 lens has IS. I was very impressed with it in general. It certainly proved it could give a good result at relatively low shutter speeds, and much lower than I would normally want to use at 400mm + When looking through the viewfinder, you can literally see the movement and camera shake reduce, its uncanny. Still not sure if I'll keep the lens though, I'm thinking of selling it along with my 70-200 non IS and buying myself 70-200 with IS
Thanks for the explanation Ian
Of course, scientifically speaking, you really need the camera automated, with regular movement, as your hand could have potentially shaken differently with each phase.
I reckon next time, stick yer washing maching on a long spin cycle, and retest...thus removing any human error at all.
I have thought long and hard about this. Regular movement is not what camera users exhibit when they hold cameras taking pictures. If you set a camera up on a platform with moving with a regular oscillation, you'd only be testing for that kind of camera motion.
I believe the best method is to use the camera as it was meant to be used, by taking a picture, and repeat the process many times to build up a statistical model of the behaviour of the IS solution.
Ian I wounder if you could do the same test with the camera mounted on a tripod with IS on and off. This would show the max from the camera and prove how much the IS affects the image quality when used on a tripod. I'm sure Stephen, and I would find that very interesting.
Ian I wounder if you could do the same test with the camera mounted on a tripod with IS on and off. This would show the max from the camera and prove how much the IS affects the image quality when used on a tripod. I'm sure Stephen, and I would find that very interesting.
Ps should I change my signature to Shaky
Yes please, though I know the effect with a tripod I'd love to see a result using that 70-200f4 on a monopod if possible with & without the IS
Yes, I have included a tripod shot with IS off to establish as perfect a situation as possible, then IS on, remaining on the tripod, plus off-tripod, hand held.
I haven't tried a monopod mode - but this can be arranged
Yes please, though I know the effect with a tripod I'd love to see a result using that 70-200f4 on a monopod if possible with & without the IS
Stephen I noticed that you said you could see the difference in the viewfinder when your IS is switched on. Dose this mean that your IS is on constantly. I have two modes. Mode one constant stabilizer. Mode two stabiliser only effective as you press the shutter button. In Ian's test, as with all other test I have seen, mode two is the most reliable.
Yes, I have included a tripod shot with IS off to establish as perfect a situation as possible, then IS on, remaining on the tripod, plus off-tripod, hand held.
I haven't tried a monopod mode - but this can be arranged
Stephen I noticed that you said you could see the difference in the viewfinder when your IS is switched on. Dose this mean that your IS is on constantly. I have two modes. Mode one constant stabilizer. Mode two stabiliser only effective as you press the shutter button. In Ian's test, as with all other test I have seen, mode two is the most reliable.
Yes, with my 100-400 lens its on all the time. However there are also two modes and Mode 1 is the default. Mode 2 is for when there is movement in only one direction ie for panning, I've only used that once, and so far as I recall it was successful. The IS kicks in when you depress the shutter to lock focus and exposure, you can see the image in the viewfinder suddenly become steady. However I remember using a tripod with my old IS lens that I no longer have. As you depressed the shutter you could see the image move uncannilly across the screen, and is the reason you must switch off the IS.
I'm interested to see if the same is true when using a monopod, which obviously is not so rigid as a tripod. If I could use 3-400mm at say 60th sec handheld, if I was to use a monopod too to steady the camera and to take the not inconsiderable strain without it having a detrimental effect, I'd be inclined to do it. If its no good then I'd have to switch off the IS
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalise advertising, and to analyse site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Does image stabilisation work?
Comment