[normhead]

1) Of course you would brace against something to get more stability; unless, of course, you don't have anything to brace on

2) You are assuming that everyone has the same needs/wants as you, and dismissing the feature out of hand for everyone. Other people have more of a need/inclination to use SR than you do.

Well no to number 2. I sue SR as required, generally up to 1/6 second but sometimes up to a quarter second. The thread title would indicate that anyone with an Oly can hand hold for 2 seconds. I doubt that's true. The claims made for the Oly are in my mind extremely suspect. I'd seriously be interested in walking around with me, using an Oly, them shooting a 2 second exposure at say 400 ISO and 2 seconds and me shooting my K-1 at 3200 at 1/4 second to see who gets more keepers. Or in other words, how useful is this? It sounds to me like a lot of hype. Especially since the only time you actually have to have a long exposure is blurring moving water and 1/6s is fine for that.

As for dismissing the feature out of hand, we have one example of a bookcase, not a picture I'd even want. Show me something I want. Sandy's image is one I'd actually try and replicate. Oops, it was taken with a K-1, not an Oly.

Hardly dismissing the subject out of hand, I'm pointing out the flaws in this little bit of hype. TO me it's just some guy bragging about his gear. For all I know he could have done the same image quality or better shooting a higher ISO on his K-1. It's almost like the long exposure is compensation for not so hot so high ISO performance. But I'm not guessing if that's true or not, I'm just saying, the utility of the SR in the Loy hasn't been proved, or even demonstrated as useful for anything but pictures of a book shelf. All the real world images were taken with K-1s.

Useful tool or marketing gimmick? In my mind that remains to be seen.
I'd say anyone jumping on the bandwagon after what's been shown here is pretty gullible. Far from dismissing the feature out of hand, I'm just not making up my mind until I see something useful, an actual image I'd keep on my hard drive, taken with it. It's not a thing until someone proves it's worth with an image I couldn't have done better with Pentax SR and higher ISO setting.

---

Last edited by normhead; 05-11-2018 at 05:24 AM.

[MJKoski]

I had beta blockers for a while in 2014 and tried their effect on handheld shooting. I managed to get 1s exposures with 21mm wide angle without SR (Canon 5D + 21mm Distagon). Not always but maybe 2-3 out of 10. Combine beta blocker with SR then I would say 2 second is very possible with K-1.

[MJKoski]

I had beta blockers for a while in 2014 and tried their effect on handheld shooting. I managed to get 1s exposures with 21mm wide angle without SR (Canon 5D + 21mm Distagon). Not always but maybe 2-3 out of 10. Combine beta blocker with SR then I would say 2 second is very possible with K-1.

[repaap]

Well no to number 2. I sue SR as required, generally up to 1/6 second but sometimes up to a quarter second. The thread title would indicate that anyone with an Oly can hand hold for 2 seconds. I doubt that's true. The claims made for the Oly are in my mind extremely suspect. I'd seriously be interested in walking around with me, using an Oly, them shooting a 2 second exposure at say 400 ISO and 2 seconds and me shooting my K-1 at 3200 at 1/4 second to see who gets more keepers. Or in other words, how useful is this? It sounds to me like a lot of hype. Especially since the only time you actually have to have a long exposure is blurring moving water and 1/6s is fine for that.

As for dismissing the feature out of hand, we have one example of a bookcase, not a picture I'd even want. Show me something I want. Sandy's image is one I'd actually try and replicate. Oops, it was taken with a K-1, not an Oly.

Hardly dismissing the subject out of hand, I'm pointing out the flaws in this little bit of hype.

Yea, I’m quoting you cuz you also quoted one before, and my thoughts goes similarly..
I do believe thet IF you need it, then it is good. especially when you want that shot, with little longer exposure, and can get away with it. wether it is traffic light trails, waterfalls ect. I’v been really happy with my pentax SR and would not like to be with out. now entering above 1 second handheld territory, it is quite demanding regardles. but where Oly SRis better than Pentax is LV and movie. obviously panny 85, oly e5mii is not much better than Pentax. it must be e1m2 where difference comes. I could see that maximum of 5-10 sec timer useful in my kind of shots with cityscapes ect. but what will be lacking is DR of larger format. I’v been looking pictures of Olympus pros, because I get newsletter from oly(haven’t seen any from Pentax, even if I have been customer for longer than with Oly). and I have been keeping eye of DR. and, no. not enough. I’m travelling quite a bit and small system would be nice. So far I’m using oly mostly for my animations.

but great that Olympus is developing 5 axis stabilizer. competition is good fro Ricoh to keep on developing.

[normhead]

but great that Olympus is developing 5 axis stabilizer. competition is good fro Ricoh to keep on developing.

Even if in the end the difference in sensor weight make it unlikely you can do the same thing with an FF body, and the differences in high ISO performance make it unnecessary. No doubt it's great thing for Oly shooters. I'm just not sure comparing it to a K-1 is what you want to do. So far in terms of images posted, the K-1 is winning this imaginary competition.

It's still quite possible this feature is not necessary for an FF camera because it's better in high ISO performance.

This is kind of like a boxer claiming he had a faster jab after just getting K0'd by a roundhouse right. Ya, this little thing you do is better, but you lost the fight.

To stick with the boxer analogy... its better to challenge someone in your own weight class.

[MJKoski]

Whoa! I agree with you on something. Thing is that current Sony FF IBIS loses to IBIS which was in OM-D back in 2013. I shot one wedding with OM-D back then and 75/1.8 Zuiko was super easy to handle in dim church. That little buzzer certainly is easier to stabilize well.

So, K-1 and Sony are about the same at the moment. There is little difference however, you cannot see the effect of IBIS in action with OVF versus EVF which makes Sony easier to handle in such situation.

[KDD]

Oly is not full frame.

[repaap]

Whoa! I agree with you on something. Thing is that current Sony FF IBIS loses to IBIS which was in OM-D back in 2013. I shot one wedding with OM-D back then and 75/1.8 Zuiko was super easy to handle in dim church. That little buzzer certainly is easier to stabilize well.

So, K-1 and Sony are about the same at the moment. There is little difference however, you cannot see the effect of IBIS in action with OVF versus EVF which makes Sony easier to handle in such situation.

True, but. EVF has a lot things where it is bad. Great thing is that stablised VF. Other than that. It is so clumsy, if one is not so familiar with it. With OVF you see all the time everything as it is. You cant see shot that you just made woth EVF. With VF unless stabilisation is not at lens it is not stabilised.with both. It is nice, but also annoying. That might be the reason why there has been some sort of hybrid VF things going on. But this has nothing to do with original thread.

[madbrain]

Whoa! I agree with you on something. Thing is that current Sony FF IBIS loses to IBIS which was in OM-D back in 2013. I shot one wedding with OM-D back then and 75/1.8 Zuiko was super easy to handle in dim church. That little buzzer certainly is easier to stabilize well.

So, K-1 and Sony are about the same at the moment. There is little difference however, you cannot see the effect of IBIS in action with OVF versus EVF which makes Sony easier to handle in such situation.

With EVF, you have a very limited frame rate, however. Not sure exactly what it is, but I believe 60fps, no more. This may or may not be adequate depending for some fast-moving subjects.

Also, last night, when I was testing my GX85 with long exposures and setting the shutter speed to 2s, I was getting one frame every 2s in the EVF . Very hard to compose your shot that way - at least, it takes more time !

I don't understand why lighter cameras would be easier to handhold for long exposures. I found exactly the opposite, with the K-1 II stabilizer faring way better than the Panasonic GX85 with dual IBIS.

K1-II with grip and lens was 4.4lbs, GX85 only 1.1 lb.



---------- Post added 05-11-18 at 04:45 PM ----------

It's still quite possible this feature is not necessary for an FF camera because it's better in high ISO performance.

It really depends what lens and conditions you are shooting. I can handhold a 800mm mirror lens with the K-1 II . Not at 2s exposure, but at 1/15s.
Typical rule of thumb is to use 1 divided by focal length for shutter speed , which would mean 1/800s.
I would have to use very high ISO to shoot at 1/800s with that f8 fixed aperture lens.
I don't think it's correct to say the feature is not necessary with FF.

---------- Post added 05-11-18 at 04:47 PM ----------

True, but. EVF has a lot things where it is bad. Great thing is that stablised VF. Other than that. It is so clumsy, if one is not so familiar with it. With OVF you see all the time everything as it is. You cant see shot that you just made woth EVF. With VF unless stabilisation is not at lens it is not stabilised.with both. It is nice, but also annoying. That might be the reason why there has been some sort of hybrid VF things going on. But this has nothing to do with original thread.

My GX85 has both in-body IS and in-lens IS, combind to work together . Panasonic calls it dual IBIS. It fared poorly in my tests last night.
Those 2 stabilizers don't help much with low shutter speed, if you can only see one frame every 2s in the EVF ...

[madbrain]

So, no one has any comments on this ?

I guess it's the last time I post drunk stabilizer tests to Pentax Forums.

OK, here are test shots from the K-1 II .

[Sandy Hancock]

My resting heartbeat is >100bpm, I had 300mg of caffeine today, and a fair amount of alcohol at dinner time as well.

By way of contrast, a decade or so of competitive archery has taught me a thing or two about standing still and holding steady. My regular long distance trail running has resulted in a resting heart rate of about 55. And I hadn't had a drink for at least twelve hours when I took the image in the Trinity College library

[madbrain]

By way of contrast, a decade or so of competitive archery has taught me a thing or two about standing still and holding steady. My regular long distance trail running has resulted in a resting heart rate of about 55. And I hadn't had a drink for at least twelve hours when I took the image in the Trinity College library

I have had pulse recorded as high as 250 as a teenager in PE class. I am supposed to be dead. My guess is that it was too much vitamin C intake that day, as I take some for my regular colds, and it is known to raise heart rate.

In any case, you didn't post a full resolution image for DPS image. I think it might look slightly different if we could see the full 36MP.

I think all my K-1 II images look fine if downsized to the same as yours. At 4K, all are usable. It's only when pixel-peeping at >4K resolution that the sharpness differences really show. That would be most relevant for large prints and/or crops.

[Sandy Hancock]

You're kidding, surely. View my image in Flickr at 2048 pixels wide - it's pretty sharp.

Remember, this thread is about IBIS, not about high ISO noise or lens resolution.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————

Oh, stuff it: here it is at full size. Download it from Flickr if you must....


Trinity College library - full size

[madbrain]

You're kidding, surely. View my image in Flickr at 2048 pixels wide - it's pretty sharp.

I didn't say your image wasn't sharp. I absolutely agree it's sharp. I only said that it can't fully be evaluated at that resolution

Remember, this thread is about IBIS, not about high ISO noise or lens resolution.

I am aware. However, at full resolution, blurring clearly shows in my K-1 II 2s shots, which doesn't show in the K-1 II 0.5s or 0.5s shots.
If you shrink all 3 of these images to HD resolution (about 2MP), they are practically indistinguishable. At 4MP, the 2s looks blurred, others look fine.
But at 36MP at 1:1 resolution with the monitor, you can very clearly see the effect of the shaking in the 2s shot. And to a lesser extent the 0.5s and 1s shots too.
In the 1/40s shot, you can read the titles of all the books, but there is more noise. The point of the stabilizer is to use a lower shutter speed to get more light and a cleaner, sharper image, than you might achieve without stabilizer.
In my case, 2s is not really needed to get enough light. Shooting between 1/4 and 1/20 would produce a picture with less blur than the 0.5s - 2s shots. Ie. it would be a sharper picture.
And it would also have less noise than the 1/40s picture, due to lower corresponding ISO, if aperture was wider. Bracketing in Tv mode, based on shutter speed, might more most sense. That would leave both aperture and ISO up to the camera, though.
Bracketing in Tv mode with fixed ISO would change just aperture as function of shutter speed. I'm actually going to try that now.


So, resolution is related to IBIS, IMO. If you intend to do large prints, or print from crops, then resolution matters. You need to pixel peep for those cases, and have a better IBIS if you have a higher-resolution sensor, than for a small sensor.
Seems like Pentax certainly has that in the K-1 II vs the GX85 sensor

Oh, stuff it: here it is at full size. Download it from Flickr if you must....


Trinity College library - full size

Do I need a flickr account to do that ? I don't have one. I can't see a way to download the full resolution file.

[biz-engineer]

Oh, stuff it: here it is at full size. Download it from Flickr if you must....

Visibly sharp at 2 sec. exposure with the 15-30. That also my experience with the 15-30, in shadows, handheld, and it impressed me.