I.S. goes wrong?

[snaarman]

Here's a boring picture from the recent holiday. When I looked at it I thought it looked a bit soft, and its hardly a work of art, so it was sidelined.

When I looked at it reallly close - I see what I always imagine is the IS system making a mistake. I sometimes get this effect - almost like two exposures offset by a tiny amount.

So, check the EXIF: This was shot at 22mm and 1/250 second. Don't tell me that was camera shake. I'm getting on a bit and I'd had a beer, but only one, honest...



I am starting to think that IS is as much of a disadvantage at higher speeds as it is a benefit at lower speeds. Anyone else harbour these doubts?

Pete

[Who's_E]

Re: I.S. goes wrong?

Pete,

Yes.

Perhaps it is unfair of me but I have some almost-lovely photos of a Cornish engine house taken on a sunny day that are fuzzy. A non-moving subject, monster shutter speed, short focal length, steady bone-supported stance and the only other potential fuzz would have either been the filter (Hoya Pro) or the lens (14-42) but it is consistent across bodies and HG lenses, too.

I don't use electronic IS any more, unless it is clearly going to help in low light and I have nothing else. My E-system beanbag is now the order of the day for situations where focal length > shutter speed.

I can't remember what it is that you use (420?) but my E3 is three years old and I wonder if it has de-calibrated somehow, although the E520 was only a year old.

I know this doesn't exactly help, but a problem shared...

Nick

[snaarman]

Re: I.S. goes wrong?

Pete,

I can't remember what it is that you use (420?) but my E3 is three years old and I wonder if it has de-calibrated somehow, although the E520 was only a year old.

Nick

Yes, I am working up the courage to turn IS off. (BTW - This is on a E600 which is not that old I guess - I've also seen it on my E620 as well)

Trouble is - remembering to switch it back on for those slow shots.

Wouldn't it be great if there were a firmware update that .. blah blah blah :-)

Pete

[wanderer]

Re: I.S. goes wrong?

I was at a photo workshop with Laurie Campbell at the weekend and he said he didn't use it as it was more trouble than it was worth.

Me being cleverer than him, I didn't turn it off and a couple of my photos have just this effect.
So it looks as if he was right .

[jdal]

Re: I.S. goes wrong?

I only use it when shutter speed is too low, if I remember to turn it off! I rather like the adage of an ex oly-user on the dark side when he said it made blurred shots less blurred. It must chew batteries up as well.

[Zuiko]

Re: I.S. goes wrong?

I really wish IS was customizable so you could set the default shutter speed/focal length ratio at which you want it to cut in. Also, so that it automatically turns off if you select anti-shock, when you will invariably be using a tripod or other firm support.

[fridgemagnet]

Re: I.S. goes wrong?

On a purley technical note is IS sensed via movement as seen by the sensor or by actual movement of the camera body? . Either way i think "IS" can be easily fooled especialy if it is purely by movement as seen by the sensor, what will the "IS" compensate for when part of the image is moving but another part is stationary. Which ever part of the image is compensated for then the other part will be degraded ?. ATB martin

[Zuiko]

Re: I.S. goes wrong?

On a purley technical note is IS sensed via movement as seen by the sensor or by actual movement of the camera body? . Either way i think "IS" can be easily fooled especialy if it is purely by movement as seen by the sensor, what will the "IS" compensate for when part of the image is moving but another part is stationary. Which ever part of the image is compensated for then the other part will be degraded ?. ATB martin

It compensates for movement of the camera body. I believe it is based on the principle of gyroscopes, but I may be wrong about that.

[Kiwi Paul]

Re: I.S. goes wrong?

Yep my E5 as you probably all know by now has faulty IS, I just leave it off now until I can be bothered sending back to be looked at again. You don't need it for most shots, all my Bavarian wildlife shots were taken with it off as were all my shot I took in Prague on the same trip (photos yet to be posted on here) and no blurriness at all, all are sharp as a tack. I remember the good ole days when there was no IS lol.

Paul

[meach]

Re: I.S. goes wrong?

I was at a photo workshop with Laurie Campbell at the weekend and he said he didn't use it as it was more trouble than it was worth.

I quite agree with him. The one time I remembered it was there and used it I didn't really notice any benefit at all (although to be fair my shots might have been worse without it). The problem arose the next time I went out shooting and ruined a whole session of tripod work because I'd forgotten to switch it off - I realised afterwards that I'd heard it working but I just thought there was something wrong with the camera.

[Guest]

Re: I.S. goes wrong?

It compensates for movement of the camera body. I believe it is based on the principle of gyroscopes, but I may be wrong about that.

That's my understanding as well.

For the example given I wonder where Pete put his original focus point. I'd tend to focus that scene on the three taller coniferous trees to the left of the road or the deciduous tree visible in the gap to the left of those. If he put the focus point much further back towards the hills then it is easy to anticipate problems.

So far, for my shots on my cameras, it's always been possible to reconcile such issues with my mistakes, not the cameras.

Not ruling out the possibility of a fault with individual cameras, or indeed of a general 'problem' but I'd expect any 'general' problem to be better identified given the maturity of the IS system.

Nick

[Cathrine Stephansen]

Re: I.S. goes wrong?

At the workshop with David Noton last year we were all advised to turn off the IS when using a tripod, as it introduces a compensation for a shake that isn't there.

Your blur is sideways, Pete. That's not camera shake!

[Ross the fiddler]

Re: I.S. goes wrong?

I have shown this on other 4/3's forums for woofmix & thought it would be worthwhile showing this to you now.

I have experimented with IS results using my E30 with the 14-54II lens at 45-46mm & shutter speed at 1/8 sec.

Here are close crops of the results.

IS off.


IS1 is ON but elbows are supported on the table.


Finally I used IS1 ON but with arms free with it giving the best results.


My conclusion was that IS works best when the internal gyroes have movement to work with & if restricted in any way, will overdrive past the point necessary for a commpletely stabilised condition. In other words, don't brace your arms into the body if you want to you IS because it will counteract the action of the IS system. Well, that's my theory anyhow.

Hope that is helpful.


PS Now you know why I have to clean up my weeds.

[Zuiko]

Re: I.S. goes wrong?

I have shown this on other 4/3's forums for woofmix & thought it would be worthwhile showing this to you now.

I have experimented with IS results using my E30 with the 14-54II lens at 45-46mm & shutter speed at 1/8 sec.

Here are close crops of the results.

IS off.


IS1 is ON but elbows are supported on the table.


Finally I used IS1 ON but with arms free with it giving the best results.


My conclusion was that IS works best when the internal gyroes have movement to work with & if restricted in any way, will overdrive past the point necessary for a commpletely stabilised condition. In other words, don't brace your arms into the body if you want to you IS because it will counteract the action of the IS system. Well, that's my theory anyhow.

Hope that is helpful.


PS Now you know why I have to clean up my weeds.

Thanks for that, Ross. A good example of why IS should never be used on a tripod or, it now seems, with any form of support. I suppose the challenge now for manufacturers is to come up with intelligent IS.

[David Morison]

Re: I.S. goes wrong?

I have always regarded IS as an additional tool to be used in difficult circumstances and not as a "leave it on and forget it" accessory. Consequentially I rarely use it, even with the 300mm, resorting only to it in poor light or hand-held macro (not even then if I am using flash). Like many of us here I was brought up on slow films in basic cameras, twin lens reflex, and 35mm SLR all without the "luxury" of IS and learned to develop strategies for coping with the possibility of camera shake. Carrying this forward into DSLR with IS means this facility is rarely used so I don't think about it often. A lot of my wildlife photography requires fast shutter speeds to freeze subject movement so camera shake never comes into it. If only a system (apart from flawed digital stabilisation) could be invented to freeze the subject - I wish!!

David