e-510 50mm 1/6 f/6.3 iso 400 sensor-based image stabilization on

e-510 50mm 1/6 f/5.6 iso 400 sensor-based image stabilization off

does sensor-based image stabilization really work? umm, well, unless you blew by the pair of pics above, that is truly a rhetorical question at this point. fact is, a sixth of second is way below my hand-held speed, with i.s. off i had to shoot at 1/60 to get similar sharpness. and i'm leaving out variables, and since i'm being technical, i'd better toss those in.

the pictures above are 1:1 crops. the lens i used was my 50mm macro, which on a 4:3 camera is equivalent to 100mm in 35mm, and around 80mm equivalant on aps-c cameras, the most common dslr sensor size/format, when it comes to magnification and field of view. the subject, a bottle of a current fave french plonk, was about 45cm from the image plane; i've had exactly two glasses, and that might make my safe hand-held speed about 1/30. i took five photographs in each of stabilized and non-stabilized modes, and i picked the best sample of each five for the comparison. the discrepancy in the aperture was because i shot in shutter priority instead of full manual, but i think you'll agree that neither exposure nor depth of field have any bearing on what i'm demonstrating here, and that the difference between f/6.3 and f/5.6 would make no difference at all on this crop, especially in four-thirds, where, in 35mm photography or digital "full-frame" (there's a reason i put that in quotes here) would be between 12.6 and 11.2. ahh, fuck, with all these aps-c/four-thirds/35mm maths i'm always doing trying to compare lenses and cameras, it's a wonder my head hasn't spun right off by now. anyway...

five frames i.s. on, five off, and then two each of 1/30 and 1/60 with the i.s. off, and it was the 1/60s that gave the sharpness results closest to 1/6 with i.s. on. three full stops, maybe more (maybe four stops as the camera manufacturer claims? didn't try it at 1/3, not quite that into this experiment) on a moderate tele-lens with a 24° field of view. at 1/6 and i.s. on, all shots were usable; with i.s. off, none were even close.

i find it interesting the ways in which using the e-510 has changed the way i take pictures. most of its improvements over the e-500 are more evolutionary than revolutionary. but what is revolutionary is the body-based image stabilization - the only time i worry about shutter speeds these days is when the subject requires it, not shaky-handed old me. and the especially neato part is that while you can see the results in the image above with a short tele, the stabilization is even more effective when using longer lenses - 150mm (300mm eq.) and above. does i.s. on the 510 save every shot? no. but i'm used to losing one in five, or about 20 percent of my shots to camera shake. with i.s., i lose about one in a hundred, about 1%. and these aren't just guestimates, event shooting with the e-500 and the e-510 producing a sample size of thousands of photos from each on the same occasion shows these ratios to be true - in fact, at one event, out of 1300 photos shot one afternoon with the 510, i lost exactly two to camera shake, only 0.15%(!), while same day, same time, the 500 produced the usual 20% failure rate. changes everything.

and i did say "ways" at the beginning of that last paragraph. there is one other big change with the 510: i really don't care what iso i'm shooting at. with the 500, anything over iso 400 was in the danger zone, iso 800+ most always required me to spend time reducing noise in post-processing if i wanted to crop or print larger than 8x10. yes, there is visible noise in the 510 at 1600, at least how i shoot the camera, that is, with noise reduction turned off at all isos. but it's a pleasing noise, as pleasing as that in fuji superia 1600 colour print film, if not more so. and it's a much more predictable noise than the 500 and therefore far less tweaking is necessary at the software level if i need to print huge.

so, things i don't like about the 510? there are a couple. the first is that, when shooting off a few shots on a canon 30d or a nikon d80 or d200, i get really jealous how quiet the mirror/shutter sound is. the 510 does have a satisfying snap to it, and by no means is the sound any louder or worse than the d40 or rebel xti, but it is a reminder that, regardless of how beautiful the 510's photos are, or how amazingly deep its advanced controls go, it's a prosumer built to a price point, however attractive that price point may be. worth noting it only bothers me when i pick up a body that sells at twice the price, it's not actually objectionable at all when shooting. and one more, and this one drives me batty, if the camera is around my neck but also under my right arm and i grab it for a quick shot half the time when i press it to my face the left side of the lens strap smooshes right over the viewfinder. i can't figure that one out, there is nothing non-standard about the way the strap attaches, and i've checked the diagram in the instruction manual a few times over and i'm sure it's threaded right. there is some solace in that i've checked the forums, talked to many other users, and i'm the only one i know of who's reported this particular problem. oh, and that's the list. love the 510 to bits.

indulgent me! five years ago or more, i used to indulge myself by getting into a lot of detail about my actual life on the blog. haven't done that much in years now, instead, especially of late, i just go on and on about, well, this post is a good example. i guess i'm still indulgent, but it's funny how a person's focus changes.

before i go, let's get back to the "full-frame" thing. in this modern dslr world, when we say full-frame, we're usually referring to cameras like the canon 1ds or the new nikon d3. these are (very expensive) cameras with an image sensor the same frame size as 35mm film. and when you bolt a lens, such as a legacy lens or one that's not specifically for digital, to an aps-c or similar-sized sensor camera, you are indeed not using the full-frame output of the lens, not using the full image circle but rather a crop of it. in these cases, calling a camera like the d3 a full-frame, or for that matter cameras like the 40d or d80 crop sensored, makes good sense. but, well, this is just me talking, if you're using a nikkor dx lens on your d80 or an ef-s lens on your 40d, well those lenses have an image circle designed for the smaller sensors so actually, in these cases, you are shooting full-frame. same goes for olympus, except all of the lenses are designed specifically for the smaller sensor, so really, i've been shooting "full-frame" all the while, mind you at the cost of never being able to pick up a nice legacy lens for cheap at the thrift store. i mean, full-frame, but not necessarily with all the benefits (and limitations, for that matter - angle of view and vignetting come to mind pretty quickly) of a 35mm-sized sensor, but with the full usable output of the lens, the entire specific, hopefully telecentric, image circle the lens was designed with.

quick props to nikon are in order here for making the dx lenses useable on the d3 - try to use an ef-s lens on a canon 5d and you'll be off to the repair shop in no time. i'll bet the one time you do that the mirror slap is way louder than on my 510. and it probably costs the same as my whole camera to replace that mirror sub-assembly.

as a final aside of sorts here, i hope i'm being fair. fact is, a lot of people ask me for advice when they're considering their first dslr. and yes, i plug olympus, mostly because it's a brand that's still under many peoples' radar (it was way under my radar for many, many years) and one they may not have considered otherwise. but i also push picking up and holding canons and nikons and pentaxs and i urge people to think about which one feels just right, better for them than the others, which one they can most imagine heading out the door with day after day. it's safe to say that the fuji dslrs are so esoteric that any potential s5 buyer hardly needs to ask my advice, and it's certain to say that the sony a-100 and a-700, regardless of some of the things those two bodies excel in, are the ugliest dslrs so far. well, no, the long-discontinued olympus e-300 is the ugliest, for all the same reasons that the leica digilux 3, based on the e-330 (similar to the 300) is the prettiest dslr ever; both still share the worst viewfinder image in slr history, woudn't recommend either. but at least those cameras reek of a quality build, the a-100 looks plain awful, cheap, in that respect. end of the day, and i know i've said this over and over before, you can't actually buy a bad dslr these days if you tried, so it's about the one from the case that in your hands fills you with a sense of confidence and ignites a penchant for adventure. oh, and fits your budget. and, if you're going to get serious about this whole photography thing, has a great range of wonderful lenses, but for most people, the last thing they're going to do is bolt a $4000 lens to their $900 body, most never need or want more than what's in the kit, so kit contents are important too.

k, i'm cut off. remember that bottle of wine above? it's bit over half-empty now which means i could just type at you for hours, but it also means it's time for bed. one thing that's going to help get me out of bed in the morning is to read this post, prolly fix a few grammar and spelling errors, and then read it over proper to determine if i've gone over the top with indulgence. regardless, the rare posts like these are always the ones when on those equally rare occasions i patrol my archive which most amuse me. thanks for suffering along. all i really wanted to say starting out was that i still can't believe the voodoo that makes in camera stabilization actually work. but it does. sleep well, kind reader, thanks for once again coming along.