Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Image stabilization in body, camera held by lens? (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t946777-image-stabilization-in-body-camera-held-by-lens.html)

Paul Ciszek 06-04-2012 06:57 PM

Image stabilization in body, camera held by lens?
 
So I have taken the plunge and ordered the Olympus OM-D E-M5 through a
local camera store. I also ordered the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 zoom lens
used from a highly rated dealer on Amazon (knock on wood). I got a
chance to heft a version of this in the store; it's quite heavy. Hand-
held shooting is going to be problematic with this monster. My
question, is sensor-based IS able to do the job when the lens, as
opposed to the camera, is what is being held?

A brief polemic: I went to Mike's Camera in Boulder to see the latest
Panasonic cameras (the new Olympus, alas, seems to be backordered
*everywhere*) handle the big-ass lens, see how it would mount to a
tripod, and ask questions about stuff the internet doesn't tell me.
I then purchased the camera through the store, so that they would
continue to be there so I *can* see and pick up hardware and ask
questions before I buy it. Support your local brick-and-mortar camera
store, or someday you will be buying everything sight unseen.

I drew the line at buying the zoom lens there though--I would have
if they delt in used gear, but they only sell new, and I have to save
money on this folly *somewhere*.

--
Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
| remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984


Wolfgang Weisselberg 06-04-2012 08:29 PM

Re: Image stabilization in body, camera held by lens?
 
Paul Ciszek <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> My
> question, is sensor-based IS able to do the job when the lens, as
> opposed to the camera, is what is being held?


You are supposed to hold the lens with your left hand anyway.
(If you use both hands, how do you squeeze the trigger?) So why
shouldn't IS work there?

-Wolfgang

David Dyer-Bennet 06-04-2012 10:34 PM

Re: Image stabilization in body, camera held by lens?
 
nospam@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) writes:

> So I have taken the plunge and ordered the Olympus OM-D E-M5 through a
> local camera store. I also ordered the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 zoom lens
> used from a highly rated dealer on Amazon (knock on wood). I got a
> chance to heft a version of this in the store; it's quite heavy. Hand-
> held shooting is going to be problematic with this monster. My
> question, is sensor-based IS able to do the job when the lens, as
> opposed to the camera, is what is being held?


Unless I'm missing something, that's a Four Thirds lens, not a Micro
Four Thirds. Which means you need the adapter to use in on the OM-D
E-M5, and I think the AF gets somewhat compromised.

On the other hand, yikes, there really *is* a 50-200/2.8-3.5 lens.
That's spectactular, and it's *cheap*!

> A brief polemic: I went to Mike's Camera in Boulder to see the latest
> Panasonic cameras (the new Olympus, alas, seems to be backordered
> *everywhere*) handle the big-ass lens, see how it would mount to a
> tripod, and ask questions about stuff the internet doesn't tell me.
> I then purchased the camera through the store, so that they would
> continue to be there so I *can* see and pick up hardware and ask
> questions before I buy it. Support your local brick-and-mortar camera
> store, or someday you will be buying everything sight unseen.


Yeah, if fondling the gear is an important part of my process, then I
need to support the places that keep fondleable gear around.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Paul Ciszek 06-05-2012 01:58 PM

Re: Image stabilization in body, camera held by lens?
 

In article <ylfk62b61zb5.fsf@dd-b.net>,
David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>Unless I'm missing something, that's a Four Thirds lens, not a Micro
>Four Thirds. Which means you need the adapter to use in on the OM-D
>E-M5, and I think the AF gets somewhat compromised.


Supposedly the u4/3 cameras were meant to be usable with 4/3 lenses,
since at first that was all that was available. I have an Olympus
adapter, so it should "play nice" with the Olympus lens and Olympus
camera, when it arrives.

I went with the f/2.8 version so it would still be usable after losing
two stops to a 2x teleconverter (also Olympus).

--
Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
| remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984


Bruce 06-05-2012 02:35 PM

Re: Image stabilization in body, camera held by lens?
 
nospam@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>In article <ylfk62b61zb5.fsf@dd-b.net>,
>David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>
>>Unless I'm missing something, that's a Four Thirds lens, not a Micro
>>Four Thirds. Which means you need the adapter to use in on the OM-D
>>E-M5, and I think the AF gets somewhat compromised.

>
>Supposedly the u4/3 cameras were meant to be usable with 4/3 lenses,
>since at first that was all that was available. I have an Olympus
>adapter, so it should "play nice" with the Olympus lens and Olympus
>camera, when it arrives.
>
>I went with the f/2.8 version so it would still be usable after losing
>two stops to a 2x teleconverter (also Olympus).



As long as you expect *glacially slow autofocus*, you won't be
disappointed. The lens is set up for phase detect AF which Micro Four
Thirds bodies don't have. They use contrast detect AF which, with the
appropriate lenses, offers fast and accurate focusing.

Using a Four Thirds lens set up for phase detect AF on a Micro Four
Thirds body results in typical focusing speeds of one to three seconds
in good light. However, it can take even longer than that. In poor
light, expect it to take longer still, or not to find focus at all.



Chris Malcolm 06-08-2012 05:02 AM

Re: Image stabilization in body, camera held by lens?
 
Paul Ciszek <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> So I have taken the plunge and ordered the Olympus OM-D E-M5 through a
> local camera store. I also ordered the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 zoom lens
> used from a highly rated dealer on Amazon (knock on wood). I got a
> chance to heft a version of this in the store; it's quite heavy. Hand-
> held shooting is going to be problematic with this monster. My
> question, is sensor-based IS able to do the job when the lens, as
> opposed to the camera, is what is being held?


I don't think it cares. I've found it to work (in Sony cameras) even
when the source of the camera shake was the very heavy static friction
breaking hydraulic hum of a hydraulic "cherry picker" platform I was
standing on to get a high viewpoint, and when it's due to
photographing from the windows of a moving vehicle.

--
Chris Malcolm


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.