On 6/2/2018 10:04 PM, Jan Steinman wrote:
From: Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
I think that "multi-second" is one of those "sometimes it works" kinda
thing.
I would say I have an 80% "keeper" rate on multi-second hand-held shots.
I think rifle training helps. I back my head up to something stable, tuck my
elbows into my diaphragm, push the camera to my face, slowly half-let-out a
breath, then gently stroke the shutter.
I turned out to be a good shot, when one part of my avoidance of being forced to try to make holes in other people while
they tried to make holes in me was making holes in paper targets. I have not used firearms since.
There really are few times when the IBIS
of the E-3 is superior to the non-IBIS of the E-1.
Used them both, and neither compares to the OM-D E-M1, which has five stops of
stabilization! (I think the E-3 has two or so.)
Really, Ken! The tech has moved on so far that E-3 IBIS is irrelevant to this discussion. E-1 color, etc, sure, on
appropriate topics, but not ancient IBIS.
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Deal breaker for me. IBIS has totally changed my way of shooting. Take away my
IBIS,
Interesting. You reject optical IS?
It isn't so much that I reject OIS; it's that I shoot a lot of non-OIS glass.
The beauty of IBIS is that it works with whatever you mount on the body, from a
C-8 2000mm telescope to a T-mount microscope, to a bellows.
We seem to have slipped away, as these threads routinely do, from what I was talking about. My point was about the
sacrifice of IBIS in favor of OIS in a few lenses in order to create a smaller, lighter kit. Yes, sometimes carry a
rather large kit. Other times, something more modest in size and weight is called for. Sometimes, rarely, only a P&S.
Take a look at these four cameras, and tell me that an E-M1 II is always going to be the right "axe" for everyone.
<http://j.mp/2JcVVnB>
Another perspective on the GM5 vs. the best of the E-PL series.
<http://j.mp/1xujewO>
I have an E-PM2, and used it a lot, before it became functionally obsolete for my use, including 2-axis IBIS that became
outdated, even poorer than the latest OIS. I have an E-PL7 and like it a lot, but one with Oly 14-150 is significantly
larger, heavier and more obtrusive than GM5 with Panny 14-140 - AND - still doesn't have an EVF.
All a matter of taste, of course, and that's mine.
So, the bottom line for me is that using OIS means re-spending more money on
lenses I already have,
Again, taste. I was happy to replace 14-150 and 45/1.8 with 14-140 and 42.5/1.7, to get a kit I really like. Not a
replacement for the larger IBIS bodies, an alternative for appropriate occasions.
versus just mounting the lenses I already have on an IBIS body.
I have a large menagerie of odd and/or ancient lenses designed for FF which I mostly use on a FF camera. I seldom have a
non AF lens on a µ4/3 body. Just my way of making the kind of images I want to.
I *routinely* shoot multi-second shots, hand-held.
Of what?
Waterfalls.
I do sometimes shoot longer shutter speeds with moving water, but my taste runs to sub-second exposures, not
multi-second. I tend to bracket to get the movement I like. I just checked one moving water pic. I put in my Mt. Desert
book. Eight shots, in order, 1/128x3, 1/64x2, 1/49, 1/32, 1/200. The one that ended up in print was 1/64 sec.
Traffic lights. While panning. While zooming. Use your imagination!
One of the greatest "Huh?" factors in photography is playing with time. A purposefully-blurred
subject with a razor sharp background screams, "Something is moving!" Whereas "freezing the
action" seldom communicates the same.
Here's an example:
https://www.mu-43.com/attachments/80al06-jpg.609308/
IBIS was not involved in this shot,
Which means, to me, that it isn't relevant to this discussion. Like Ken, you are veering off . . . Also, not a shot I
would want to take.
although long-shutter techniques were! This was a multi-second shot, keeping
both eyes open, panning with the action. (This was with an OM-2n and an OM
Zuiko 75-150 on Kodachrome 25, at the 1980 Winter Olympics, press box half-way
up the 90 metre jump.)
With IBIS set to vertical-only, this would have "cleaned up" the jitter in the
background streaks.
This is a good example.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/E-M5II_IBIS/Robin.htm>
Just for fun, you might have pushed that out to a second or two, for an
interesting effect. Multi-second IBIS can accentuate differential motion, such
as the legs being still, but the body moving.
a. I didn't know about the blur details until later.
b. That kind of blur doesn't, at this point, at least, interest me. Also, the bird didn't stay and pose for long.
Mostly, they don't. A pair of Black-Headed Grossbeaks are driving me crazy with their ESP that knows just when I have
camera with long lens in hand, and leave.
But if your only goal in life is to take razor-sharp photos,
I make a lot of 'unsharp' images on purpose, but generally not based on subject motion. There are exceptions, as where I
showed motion through blurring in the fancy dress of dancers in Bhutan. Still wasn't out in over one sec. territory, though.
I have to agree with your dismissal of long exposure IBIS shots. Otherwise, if
a 1/20th shot results in a slightly blurry head, try a 1/2 second shot for a
massively blurred head!
That shot is of a fountain sans bird. I already have enough of those. :-)
Even a shot like this, where air movement causes a painterly blurring, would
lose all it's interesting (to me) texture
in a multi second shot.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=California/Carrizo_Plain&image=_A004298cr.jpg>
Who said anything about the law that the only shots worth taking are
multi-second? I only said IBIS makes such shots even *possible* without a
tripod.
I agree, although just because it's possible doesn't necessarily mean I want to do it. The shots it makes possible are
seldom of interest to me. We have, I say again, veered far off the things I said. You've gone from the specific to the
general.
What's really been fun is using the Telescoping Extension Tube with various OM
macro lenses, hand-held. Due to light loss in the bellows, this is pretty near
impossible without IBIS.
I used to do that with 80/4 Auto and 135/4.5 out in the garden with film. It was fun, and eminently possible. Doesn't
seem practical to me with the 28/3.5 and 20/2?
Are there even any OIS macro lenses available?
Yes, Panny 30/2.8 and PLeica 45/2.8. I have neither. Never felt the need. For outdoor C-U/macro, I like the working
distance of longer lenses, with achromatic C-U lenses, when needed. Indoors, I use tripod or macro stand. Sure, those
lenses are 60 and 90 mm eq. in FoV, but still 30 and 45 mm in working distance. Worse yet, they are internal focus and
focus closer by reducing FL from that at infinity, further shortening working distance.
I have a half-dozen IBIS macro lenses! :-)
As do I, but they are all MF, which doesn't much interest me these days for
that kind of shooting.
Veering Back 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/
|
