wfrank wrote:
Please behave, I never said that. I said when comparing various features between the cameras I'd choose the Canon, and I dared to congrat TS for his choice and mentioning one of the really GOOD things about the Sony. People go crazy here.

you mentioned it by saying it was useless for the majority of normal to wide angle photography. which is what i've been disagreeing with. i'm sure the canon will work great for the OP, i just don't like the misinformation that seems to be rampant about IBIS.

wfrank wrote:
Jonas B wrote:
Yeah, right... IBIS is a dealbreaker?!


Please behave, I never said that. I said when comparing various features between the cameras I'd choose the Canon, and I dared to congrat TS for his choice and mentioning one of the really GOOD things about the Sony. People go crazy here.

"Please behave"? I quoted you so anyone following the thread knows what I said and you did not. What about the other part of my post?

Maybe you couldn't make much use of your slow stabilized kit lens but that doesn't mean other folks using other more interesting WA lenses can't benefit from IBIS. You may read my the whole of my post again including the last sentence and then "behave" a little yourself. You are entitled to your opinion but so is anyone else here as well.

alwang wrote:
xbarcelo wrote:
Not even that. I had several lenses around 50mm that got suddenly better right after I chipped them, so if it works, it's not doing a good job. However, once chipped, it works really well..

My understanding is that it works on unchipped lenses, but it works better with chipped lenses, because the Sony SSS also takes into account subject distance. The test for this would be comparing an unchipped lens with SSS turned on and then turned off.

that doesn't really makes sense, subject distance shouldn't make a difference for IBIS. also, i shot olympus with mostly manual focus lenses where all the camera knew was the focal length that i entered in and it worked beautifully from 28mm equiv to 800mm equiv.

sebboh wrote:


that doesn't really makes sense, subject distance shouldn't make a difference for IBIS. also, i shot olympus with mostly manual focus lenses where all the camera knew was the focal length that i entered in and it worked beautifully from 28mm equiv to 800mm equiv.

Some more discussion on this topic here.

I think it's likely the Olympus IBIS implementation is slightly different from Sony's.

Maybe we should start another thread on image stabilization, pros, cons and inside out tech talk? The purpose of this thread is filled as the OP made a decision and we are also sort of off topic here.

I think I can understand how subject distance has an impact on how hard the IBIS should work. But preferably in another thread for anyone, and not only us reading this one this far, interested.

Jonas B wrote:
Maybe we should start another thread on image stabilization, pros, cons and inside out tech talk? The purpose of this thread is filled as the OP made a decision and we are also sort of off topic here.

I think I can understand how subject distance has an impact on how hard the IBIS should work. But preferably in another thread for anyone, and not only us reading this one this far, interested.

another thread sounds fine, can't imagine it will last long and it's mostly been talked about before.

from the physics perspective, i can't think of a reason why subject distance should matter other than with lenses that have focus breathing.

in my experience (which is limited to a small number of older cameras from both manufacturers), olympus definitely has a more effective IBIS implementation particularly at longer focal lengths.

sebboh wrote:
you mentioned it by saying it was useless for the majority of normal to wide angle photography. which is what i've been disagreeing with. i'm sure the canon will work great for the OP, i just don't like the misinformation that seems to be rampant about IBIS.

Sigh, I have not used a word like "useless". What I thought I did was to talk about my experience (with IS & wides) and I am not into still life. I thought I expressed this fairly well, but either it came out wrong or there's a whole lotta sensitivity here.

sebboh wrote:
i wasn't aware you shot much (if at all) with that?
if you do, my apologies.
edit: i also have no idea if those are as well stabilized as canikon's better lenses with IS?

Actually the kitlens (18-55) is in, I believe, its fourth generation so IS is very good. Canon quantifies it to 3-4 steps. I dare almost not to say, but for wides I think it's more like 2-3. For the whites I've used it could be true though.

Usage was several years ago if you exclude a brief encounter with the NEX5N kit. But pre-5D2 usage was extensive - and if you like - partly about exploring the limits of various tech incl IS.

The one lens that was glued to my 7D was the fairly recent 15-85 (IS). It's actually a quite good lens, sharp and all. F is limited to 3.5. There is one thing I did a lot where IS was handy, for a while I was into handheld HDR and IS definetly helped the rich exposure on many occasions. F/3.5 was not the limiting factor, I was into long DOF stopped down as much as possible. So the longest time was important. Another thing was new years fireworks. The longer time you can handle the better the shot will be. But if I was to do this today, I would do both things better and I would use tripod. Most likely LiveView too, another no-no for the A900 regardless how good it is in other aspects.

Jonas B wrote:
"Please behave"? I quoted you so anyone following the thread knows what I said and you did not. What about the other part of my post?

Maybe you couldn't make much use of your slow stabilized kit lens but that doesn't mean other folks using other more interesting WA lenses can't benefit from IBIS. You may read my the whole of my post again including the last sentence and then "behave" a little yourself. You are entitled to your opinion but so is anyone else here as well.

Sorry but I interpreted your exclaimed "Yeah, right... IBIS is a dealbreaker?!" as I had offended your prophet or something.

For the rest, I cant see where I've said other people cant. I was expressing my own experience (again) and when I though it was useful. You may also read my full posts (plural) before you dashed into the discussion, but apparently there's a lot of sensitivity here. Maybe you're right in one way, but then be literal to what you write about that I am entitled to a opinion - there' no need to shout when you disagree.

wfrank wrote:
sebboh wrote:
you mentioned it by saying it was useless for the majority of normal to wide angle photography. which is what i've been disagreeing with. i'm sure the canon will work great for the OP, i just don't like the misinformation that seems to be rampant about IBIS.

Sigh, I have not used a word like "useless". What I thought I did was to talk about my experience (with IS & wides) and I am not into still life. I thought I expressed this fairly well, but either it came out wrong or there's a whole lotta sensitivity here.

it sounded to me like you were speaking from a purely speculative standpoint (due to phrasing) and that you were saying IBIS would not be helpful to anyone except in a few rare situations. in my experience i found IBIS to be helpful in roughly 90% of my photos most of which were of people (though not kids). i'm sure that i come off as over sensitive on the topic because i think it is one of the most important features for a camera to have and always hoped more consumers would demand it forcing canikon to offer it in conjunction with their ILIS (never going to happen now due to video). everybody has their issues though, you always seem hypersensitive to canon bashing to my ear, so i figured you would understand.

wfrank wrote:
sebboh wrote:
i wasn't aware you shot much (if at all) with that?
if you do, my apologies.
edit: i also have no idea if those are as well stabilized as canikon's better lenses with IS?

Actually the kitlens (18-55) is in, I believe, its fourth generation so IS is very good. Canon quantifies it to 3-4 steps. I dare almost not to say, but for wides I think it's more like 2-3. For the whites I've used it could be true though.

Usage was several years ago if you exclude a brief encounter with the NEX5N kit. But pre-5D2 usage was extensive - and if you like - partly about exploring the limits of various tech incl IS.

The one lens that was glued to my 7D was the fairly recent 15-85 (IS). It's actually a quite good lens, sharp and all. F is limited to 3.5. There is one thing I did a lot where IS was handy, for a while I was into handheld HDR and IS definetly helped the rich exposure on many occasions. F/3.5 was not the limiting factor, I was into long DOF stopped down as much as possible. So the longest time was important. Another thing was new years fireworks. The longer time you can handle the better the shot will be. But if I was to do this today, I would do both things better and I would use tripod. Most likely LiveView too, another no-no for the A900 regardless how good it is in other respects.


i know the kit lenses have advanced IS, i just wan't sure if it worked as well for them – since it requires physical movements and calibration i would expect that cheaper manufacturing might effect it's performance. i have no idea if this is true since i have no interest in such lenses (another big reason i want IBIS).

a tripod would of course always be better, but that certainly doesn't mean it's always possible. for me, i refuse to carry a tripod 99.99% of the time while IBIS shouldn't add more than a few ounces and cubic centimeters.

wfrank wrote:
For the rest, I cant see where I've said other people cant. I was expressing my own experience (again) and when I though it was useful. You may also read my full posts (plural) before you dashed into the discussion, but apparently there's a lot of sensitivity here. Maybe you're right in one way, but then be literal to what you write about that I am entitled to a opinion - there' no need to shout when you disagree.


You are right. I overreacted. I could have worded myself differently, I didn't guess you would take offense.

My experience is simply that a photographer always can benefit from IBIS, no matter the focal length. What IBIS does is simple: it lets you keep shoot handheld longer decreasing the need of a tripod. Now it doesn't stop me from using a tripod every so often but I appreciate the IBIS quite often. Yes, I could have put it that way from start.

For the rest, I cant see where I've said other people cant. I was expressing my own experience (again) and when I though it was useful. You may also read my full posts (plural) before you dashed into the discussion, but apparently there's a lot of sensitivity here. Maybe you're right in one way, but then be literal to what you write about that I am entitled to a opinion - there' no need to shout when you disagree.

You are right. I overreacted. I could have worded myself differently...

No names or anything but there's been a lot of that in the last few months here... Maybe it's that end-of-the-world thread that whatshisface started?

So I've been using the 5D MKII for manual focus for about a week now so I thought I'd add a few thoughts about my experience in case anyone is looking at this thread with a similar question in the future.

- I purchased the EG-S screen and I find the manual focus experience to be pretty good. Obviously the magnification is lower than some film SLR's and I have missed critical focus on a few shots because of that but generally it works well. The EG-S screen is slightly dim but has plenty of snap and appears very accurate when compared with magnified live view focus. I do miss having a center microprism ring for very quick shots.

- I really like the feel of the camera - obviously it feels huge at first coming from a NEX-5N but I love all the external controls and I'm quickly getting proficent with them

- I installed Magic Lantern and like it, but just can't shoot effectively by hand using the back screen to focus. Some of the ML features on a EVF equipped mirrorless camera would be very nice though. However, the focus peaking implementation is much worse than on the Sony Nex system. It just doesn't show in focus areas as clearly.

- I knew coming in that the 5DII sensor is somewhat dated but I was surprised how much better the NEX-5N sensor is in some ways. I've become used to being able to push raw files pretty hard, especially in shadow levels and the 5DII files can't handle this. Still, this is limited to extreme cases and properly exposed the image quality is exceptionally good.

- Full frame DOF control is fun, but I need to remember not to overuse it...

Overall I'm very happy with the 5DII and look forward to lots of shooting manual lenses with it!

A few examples:

I have been shooting a NEX-7 with legacy glass (manual focus only) over the past year and recently purchased the Canon 6D as an alternate body.

There were a few reasons I purchased the 6D over other DSLRs for alt shooting.

1. Updated sensor and chip technology versus buying an older 5D model (read lowlight performance and IQ that matches most current full frame offerings)
2. Body is small and light compared to others in class
3. Ability to use Canons super precision matte focus screen to aid manual focusing (yes, it works well).
4. While I would have loved a tilt LCD, the added benefit of wifi tethering the Live View to my smartphone basically takes care of this.
5. Canon EOS bodies are generally thought to be better at accepting many older legacy lenses with certain mods (sometimes to lens only, sometimes to mirror box also). This excluded the D600 for me.

As a possible added bonus...I have been trying to confirm this but havent been able to yet...There are a few reports that certain alt lenses that didnt clear mirror box on other full frame Canon bodies are clearing the 6D. Im still seaching for confirmation on this.

I sent three of my Rokkor lenses to Jim B. for conversion to EOS mount last week. I plan on using them on the 6D and the NEX-7 (with a Canon EF adapter for NEX-7). So basically Im making my lenses all EOS mount.

When I get lenses back I will report on any clearance issues or lack there of.

Mike