docusync wrote:
I had both sets of superteles from Canon (RF400 and RF600, sold them here) and Sony (FE400 and FE600), and compared them side by side. Did both “lab” and field comparisons. In the lab (not sure if I can call this a lab lol) I shot a fine print fragment handheld, going from from 1/(focal length) to 1/(focal length / 2^5). Canon holds quite well till about 4 stops. 5 stops is a hit and miss. Sony images fall apart after 2 stops. I would not risk shooting the FE600/4 at 1/150s. In the field my AF hit rate (fast action) was so much better on the Sony lenses. Ultimately the number of keepers is what matters to me, so I kept the Sonys. If I cared more about shooting perching owls at dusk - I’d kept the Canon duo instead. Long story short - there’s no perfect system (maybe Nikon with their new 400 TC and 600 TC?), and yes Sony needs to come up with better OSS ...Show more →
This varies by person though. I can and do shoot my Sony 600 down to 1/100s and get a lot more keepers with the OSS/IBIS than I would otherwise. On a tripod I shoot 1200 mm down to that speed with great results as well. In particular I find the panning mode to be the most effective, which matters a lot for BIF. My nephew can do better than that, but then again I'm sure that would be the case no matter what camera he used.
I haven't tried the latest Canon RF lenses and mirrorless bodies so I can't make that comparison. I did compare my A1 with an A7RV I used for a few weeks and the supposed improvement of the A7RV might have been there but it didn't seem any better than the A1. Ultimately when I shoot slow like that with an A1 I go with 20 or 30fps if I'm worried about shake. That will get you a few sharp shots even with IBIS/OSS turned off, so I guess at the end of the day I find it to be good enough. As you said it's the number of "keeper" shots that really matters at the end of the day.
Sony uses a more power conservative approach to stabilization compared to Canon and Fujifilm. Sony cameras and lenses both seem to stop running the gyros more quickly when idle compared to Canon. Canon and Fujifilm let you control that to some degree with their "always on" versus "only when shooting" options. Sony doesn't offer much granular control. It takes a moment for the stabilization system to fully activate when you trigger it by half pressing the shutter or starting AF.
I did some reasonably scientific(-ish) tests on Canon and Fujifilm some years back and found similar results when using similar modes. The first shot of a series tended to be less sharp than the subsequent shots in the series. The stabilizer took a moment to fully engage when shooting began so the initial shot didn't get as much benefit as later ones.
docusync wrote:
I had both sets of superteles from Canon (RF400 and RF600, sold them here) and Sony (FE400 and FE600), and compared them side by side. Did both “lab” and field comparisons. In the lab (not sure if I can call this a lab lol) I shot a fine print fragment handheld, going from from 1/(focal length) to 1/(focal length / 2^5). Canon holds quite well till about 4 stops. 5 stops is a hit and miss. Sony images fall apart after 2 stops. I would not risk shooting the FE600/4 at 1/150s. In the field my AF hit rate (fast action) was so much better on the Sony lenses. Ultimately the number of keepers is what matters to me, so I kept the Sonys. If I cared more about shooting perching owls at dusk - I’d kept the Canon duo instead. Long story short - there’s no perfect system (maybe Nikon with their new 400 TC and 600 TC?), and yes Sony needs to come up with better OSS ...Show more →
My point is they did with the body lens coordinated control. This is not easy to do. I wonder if they will give a1 this function. The lowly 5 stop rated stabilisation zve1 which uses the bionz xr processor also have this. Technically I guess Sony can give this to all camera with bionz xr?
I think Sony will give a1 this function. Rest of the camera like a74 maybe…. I hope they do
Did anyone did in-depth testing on how this new feature works with supported OSs lens and a7r5?
I just got a a7r5 with the new coordinated ibis system. I tested the 70-200mm gmii vs 85mm f1.4 at 85mm. I really can’t find a significant adv for the 70-200mm oss.
Honestly, I find the Sony oss not that useful. If u have a good ibis like the a7r5, the oss is not necessary…
Did anyone test this objectively with at longer focal length?
wind30 wrote:
I just got a a7r5 with the new coordinated ibis system. I tested the 70-200mm gmii vs 85mm f1.4 at 85mm. I really can’t find a significant adv for the 70-200mm oss.
Honestly, I find the Sony oss not that useful. If u have a good ibis like the a7r5, the oss is not necessary…
Did anyone test this objectively with at longer focal length?
I'm guessing based on your last post and first post, maybe you don't sway in the directions helped by oss. It certainly helps me.
wind30 wrote:
I just got a a7r5 with the new coordinated ibis system. I tested the 70-200mm gmii vs 85mm f1.4 at 85mm. I really can’t find a significant adv for the 70-200mm oss.
Honestly, I find the Sony oss not that useful. If u have a good ibis like the a7r5, the oss is not necessary…
Did anyone test this objectively with at longer focal length?
Test at 200 or longer. There’s a reason why oss is n longer lenses and not wide angles.
wind30 wrote:
Yes at 1/8 I am getting like 40% sharp shots on both. At least there isn’t a big change in the hit rate. I tried the 70-200 @ 135mm on my a74 and the hit rate went up. It is quite significant. Not sure if it is just the a74 has a better ibis.
On the bright side, with the a7r5, I am getting close to 100% sharp shots at 1/8 at 135mm with the 70-200mm. I sold the 135mm Gm so I can’t test that anymore.
Honestly now I know why Sony don’t have many OSS lens. I mean why they even include oss for 24-105 of it don’t improve things at those focal lengths?
Maybe your test wasn’t demanding enough. 135/1.8 in rough seas whale watching, I never had a shot that looked like bad motion blur, but I had at least 1/3 in which I would call them unsharp.
100-400 same conditions, every image tack sharp.
There is much more to IBIS than shooting at low shutter speeds.
wind30 wrote:
Did u test with two lens? One with OSs and one without oss and at which focal length?
To me, if I have to shoot in low light at 85mm, I would take the 85mm f1.4 vs the 70-200mm f2.8 OSS. The OSS adv is almost imperceptible….
I think objective data is important for people to make decisions like 35-150mm vs 70-200mm. Does the oss give any practical adv over non-oss lens?
My thoughts are more based on my observation in the viewfinder. Half press the shutter and things stabilize. I could try the sigma 85 vs 24-105 on a7rV. I updated the firmware on the zoom to update the OSS. I also have the 70-350G I really like the OSS, not much in the way of other lenses to compare with besides the 135GM. The 70-350G did not get a firmware update so I suspect its OSS does not cooperate with IBIS like other zooms.
tschopp wrote:
My thoughts are more based on my observation in the viewfinder. Half press the shutter and things stabilize. I could try the sigma 85 vs 24-105 on a7rV. I updated the firmware on the zoom to update the OSS. I also have the 70-350G I really like the OSS, not much in the way of other lenses to compare with besides the 135GM. The 70-350G did not get a firmware update so I suspect its OSS does not cooperate with IBIS like other zooms.
I would really appreciate it if you can try 85mm vs 24-105 on the a7r5. It would be very similar to my test as I also tested in 85mm vs 70-200mm @ 85mm with a7r5. The viewfinder seems pretty stable after you half pressed even on the 85mm prime without OSS due to the excellent ibis on the a7r5. I can’t really tell a difference just looking through the viewfinder so I did test shots and compare. Unfortunately, I don’t see a significant difference between the two lens either on the shots.
This topic got me interested so I took some test shots of a long distance target with A1 at 150mm & 1/20s with Tamron 35-150 (IBIS only) and 100-400GM (OIS) and I have to say the difference is underwhelming if any.
Not that easy to compare, as the Tamron is easier to hold, but still I can't say I see a clear advantage of OIS for handheld stills at this focal length.
j4nu wrote:
This topic got me interested so I took some test shots of a long distance target with A1 at 150mm & 1/20s with Tamron 35-150 (IBIS only) and 100-400GM (OIS) and I have to say the difference is underwhelming if any.
Not that easy to compare, as the Tamron is easier to hold, but still I can't say I see a clear advantage of OIS for handheld stills at this focal length.
Thanks so I am not imagining things. I think it is important for people deciding which lens to buy. I bought the 70-200mm gmii for partly for the oss and it’s ability to work with ibis to achieve slower shutter speeds. But this has not been borne out in experience, even after I got a a7r5 to test it with….
I mean if you can’t tell a difference is OSS really useless?? Why have it in the first place since every Sony body has ibis?
wind30 wrote:
I would really appreciate it if you can try 85mm vs 24-105 on the a7r5. It would be very similar to my test as I also tested in 85mm vs 70-200mm @ 85mm with a7r5. The viewfinder seems pretty stable after you half pressed even on the 85mm prime without OSS due to the excellent ibis on the a7r5. I can’t really tell a difference just looking through the viewfinder so I did test shots and compare. Unfortunately, I don’t see a significant difference between the two lens either on the shots.
I will run some tests on the 85 vs 24-105. I should be able to get some quantitative data, but won't be home to do it for a week or two. Seems like Sony has bright engineers that wouldn't do this without a benefit, but I like testing things.
wind30 wrote:
So the BIG question is, "Is Sony doing it "correctly" ?
I can't seem any performance gains from the OSS+Ibis combo vs IBIS.
With my Sony 100-400 GM the OSS does help, to about 1.5 to 2 stops, as I have tried it both on and off. Here are a few shots taken from my top floor room overlooking the Chaophraya River in Bangkok this summer with my A7RIV. All of these are handheld, no tripod.
The first is at 20mm to give some perspective to show how far away the Ferris wheel is in the last 2 photos. The 2nd photo is taken at 100mm on the 100-400GM with OSS on, at 10,000 ISO and 1/30ss (sorry for the high ISO and noise, I was testing it out at high ISO). The final shot is taken at 400mm, but in the APS-C crop mode, so at 600mm at 1/40ss and ISO of 4,000. Look at the detail of the buildings around the Ferris wheel about 1 mile away, absolutely rock steady. No way I could have gotten the last shot at 600mm and 1/40ss without the added OSS. If OSS was off, the photo would have been above 1/100ss with the ISO back up to 10,000+ and the resulting noise of the 2nd photo.
ILCE-7RM4E 20-40mm F2.8 A062 lens20mmf/3.21/3200s100 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM4FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS lens100mmf/5.61/30s10000 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM4FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS lens400mmf/5.61/40s4000 ISO0.0 EV
