How necessary is OSS?

[FowlersFreeTime]

I got into a minor disagreement with someone on the Facebook group when discussing the new Sigma 18-50 for the APSC. Lens announcement for those who aren't sure what I'm talking about: https://www.alphashooters.com/commu...es-18-50mm-f2-8-dc-dn-contemporary-lens.3100/
I said it is a brilliant lens because it is so compact and has a nice wide aperture. Many disparaged the lack of OSS, to which I replied that it was an acceptable compromise.

Disclaimer: For those of you who do not swim in those waters (good for you!), the prevailing culture on the FB group is that OSS is 100% necessary for video and stills, and yet strangely this snobbery doesn't detract from the popularity of the Sigma holy trinity of 16/30/56 mm lenses which do not have OSS.

So I started wondering about the topic of OSS. What is your take on lens stability? Specifically in the absence of IBIS, can you get the job done without either? Or would you say its not necessary until a certain focal length?

 

[J.Duffy]

So my very insignificant opinion is meh.... When I was shooting with the a6100 which didn't have ibis and doing macro with a lens that didn't have OSS it didn't matter much because I was using a flash. This was also substantiated from who I deem the God of macro, "Micael Widell". My non macro lenses had OSS when I used the a6100.

Now that I shoot with the a7riii I don't really pay attention if the lens has OSS because my camera does.... My opinion means nothing because I shoot for me as I'm a hobbyist, I don't do paid shoots and half the time I still don't know what I'm doing, lol.

 

[Boojum]

I have several cameras without OSS or IBIS. Most notably the Leica M bodies. Small light cameras can be held steadily for 28, 35, 40, 50 and 85 mm lenses. I know this because I do it, down to a half second. When you get a honking big and heavy zoom lens your chances of having that happen diminish. I can slap RF lenses on the Sony A7M III and get the same result as if on an M body Leica: steady. So, yeah, OSS and IBIS are necessary on long heavy lenses but not all lenses are long and heavy. My Tamron 500mm mirror needs to be steadied. It weighs 21 ounces and sees 500mm. OTOH my Canon 28mm f/2.8 weighs very little and needs no stabilization. Indeed, the Tamron 500mm is the only one needing stabilization, usually a monopod.

 

[Jeff A]

Let's face it. It just depends on several factors and the older you get, the more factors there are. I'll take anything I can get to increase the sharpness of my photos.

 

[Jeff A]

I got into a minor disagreement with someone on the Facebook group when discussing the new Sigma 18-50 for the APSC. Lens announcement for those who aren't sure what I'm talking about: https://www.alphashooters.com/commu...es-18-50mm-f2-8-dc-dn-contemporary-lens.3100/
I said it is a brilliant lens because it is so compact and has a nice wide aperture. Many disparaged the lack of OSS, to which I replied that it was an acceptable compromise.

Disclaimer: For those of you who do not swim in those waters (good for you!), the prevailing culture on the FB group is that OSS is 100% necessary for video and stills, and yet strangely this snobbery doesn't detract from the popularity of the Sigma holy trinity of 16/30/56 mm lenses which do not have OSS.

So I started wondering about the topic of OSS. What is your take on lens stability? Specifically in the absence of IBIS, can you get the job done without either? Or would you say its not necessary until a certain focal length?

FB Group. It makes me not want to go there.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

In my opinion, on shorter focal length lenses, where it's possible to stay steady more easily, and where you really don't need to shoot a low shutter speed, it's less important, maybe unimportant. Where I think it's nigh on essential, is for big zooms, where handholding is tougher for many. There is no way that without it I could shoot handheld at 1/60th and be sharp, and this is sometimes necessary in low light, where I don't want to shoot at 10000 ISO and I can get away with it if the subject says still! That said, there is a point where you need to turn it off too, otherwise it compromises IQ as it's trying to correct movement in camera that just wouldn't show at those speeds. For me this is at over 1/1600th on the 200 600. On my old Tamron/Nikon, it was over 1/500th on Tamrons recommendation, as their system works differently.

 

[J.Duffy]

In my opinion, on shorter focal length lenses, where it's possible to stay steady more easily, and where you really don't need to shoot a low shutter speed, it's less important, maybe unimportant. Where I think it's nigh on essential, is for big zooms, where handholding is tougher for many. There is no way that without it I could shoot handheld at 1/60th and be sharp, and this is sometimes necessary in low light, where I don't want to shoot at 10000 ISO and I can get away with it if the subject says still! That said, there is a point where you need to turn it off too, otherwise it compromises IQ as it's trying to correct movement in camera that just wouldn't show at those speeds. For me this is at over 1/1600th on the 200 600. On my old Tamron/Nikon, it was over 1/500th on Tamrons recommendation, as their system works differently.

Thanks for mentioning this. I didn't know that it was actually recommended at certain shutter speeds....

 

[Tim Mayo]

I could be wrong, but I don't think any of Tamron's excellent E-mount lenses include OSS in the lens, apart from the Tamron 150-500mm f5-6.7 Di III VC which makes sense. Like others have said, it's a lot more useful in long telephoto lenses than it is at shorter focal lengths, and you can also bump up your shutter speed to compensate if you really need to.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

This has been a good topic to bring up then, I'm learning from you all!
My takeaway is that for 50mm and less, you can definitely shoot without any stabilization. I mean stabilization is a modern concept anyway, I'm sure my father used to shoot un stabilized Nikon film cameras back in the day...

To prove this point I just looked at the common APSC lenses:
None of Sigma's 4 E-mount lenses are stabilized, but none of them exceed 56mm.
Tamron's 11-20 isn't stabilized, but its 17-70 and 18-300mm DO include VC (vibration compensation)
I'm seeing the pattern now that you've all explained it to me.
Sony's E-mount line-up however, disrupts that trend by having OSS on their 10-18, 16-50, 16-70, 35 and 50. My suspicion is that this added value is more beginner/amateur friendly, because the more advanced 16-55 f2.8 G lens does not have OSS.

Thanks everyone!

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

FB Group. It makes me not want to go there.

Its the modern conundrum of giving everyone a voice: YouTube comments, FB Groups, heck even this group, You can let anyone in but there's no filter. I'm surprised nobody has told me to shut up yet

 

[Jeff A]

Its the modern conundrum of giving everyone a voice: YouTube comments, FB Groups, heck even this group, You can let anyone in but there's no filter. I'm surprised nobody has told me to shut up yet

I don't recall an instance of you being a PITA!

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Thanks for mentioning this. I didn't know that it was actually recommended at certain shutter speeds....

Yep, Canon and Nikon do recommend it's off too. I had a whole day of close shots of a raptor ruined before I found out about it from a Tamron rep.

Tim. I was referencing a Tamron lens on my old Nikon set up, but it would apply if they bothered to put it on any lens. Of course, on the RIV you still have in body stabilisation of 2 stops, if that works with the current non OSS lenses, something I don't actually know!

 

[Deleted Member 777]

"Back in the day" (use your best old man's voice) we had no such thing. The rule of thumb was to shoot a SS at least as fast as your FL. Thus, a 50mm lens needs 1/60 or thereabouts. A 100mm lens was set to 1/120, etc. My first SLR was a Pentax K-1000, totally on my own. My next camera was a first generation Minolta Maxxum 7000. Minolta engineers had included a program that recognized whatever lens was connected and set the lowest possible shutter speed based on the FL. This worked of course only in 'Program' mode. Switching to S, A, or M negated that. This was my first experience with any kind of attempt at stabilization, and amounted to a camera company trying to save their customers from themselves. Since the Maxxum was basically the worlds first SLR P-n-S, it had to perform as such for anyone who picked it up.

Many shorter FL lenses don't have IS. I shoot a Panasonic G9 with mostly Leica glass. One of my favorite indoor lenses, the 8-18/2.8-4 has no stabilization. A lot of people complain about that, but it's simply not needed. We're talking 16-36 FF equivalence, so slower shutters can be applied. Add to it the incredible IBIS of the G9 and I can handhold that lens into the full-seconds shutter speeds.

 

[AlphaWorld]

Yes, the rule of thumb is using a shutter speed that is at least as fast as 1/focal length to deal with hand shake. That's because the longer the focal length, the less the lens has to move to blur the image. If you have a slow heartbeat and steady hands, you might be able to get away with a shutter speed somewhat slower; if you are hyped up on caffeine or getting old, maybe a bit faster! Note also that a really high res sensor like an A7RIV has smaller pixels, making any shake more visible, so you may need a higher shutter speed to compensate (some people advocate doubling the focal length to be sure, but that can be overkill).

All of this is about hand shake from a handheld camera, not a camera on a tripod. It is not related to the speed of the subject! So don't expect to get a clear shot of a rapidly moving child at 1/24 on a 24mm lens

So following the rule of thumb, to avoid images blurred by shake in your hands, you need 1/24 for a 24mm lens (easy!), all the way through to 1/600 for a 600mm lens. 1/600 needs more light, and that is more difficult when your 600mm lens has a maximum aperture of f/4 (if you can afford the GM) or f/6.3 (for the rest of us!).

Optical stabilisation in a lens involves a group of elements inside the lens which is connected to gyroscopes. That group is moved to counteract detected lens movement. It was first introduced on long lenses, because that was where it was most needed. It can be surprisingly effective, allowing slower shutter speeds on those long lenses to capture clear images. Being able to shoot at 1/300 on a 600mm lens with a 2x teleconverter (which gives an effective focal length of 1200mm, and gives a maximum aperture 2 stops slower) is impressive.

The catch is that optical stabilisation requires that extra group of elements. Every added element means possible added aberrations (or even more elements to remove those aberrations). So it makes sense that you only add optical stabilisation where it's needed - the long telephoto lenses. Unsurprisingly, these lenses are rarely designed without optical stabilisation these days.

The problem is that not everyone understands what optical stabilisation is, how it works, and what it is good for. It seems some have elevated optical stabilisation to a mythic status, and believe that it must be included in every lens for that lens to be considered "good enough".

Consider a good 24mm lens, like the 24 GM. It's an f/1.4 lens, so getting a shutter speed of 1/24 is easy in all but the most challenging light, and it will have ample depth of field (shorter lens = more depth of field). So why would you need OSS in such a lens?

Consider a 24-70mm lens, typically f/2.8 or f/4. Again, getting to 1/70 is rarely going to be a challenge, so why would OSS be needed in that lens? Well, apparently it is required if you want to sell to the fanatic followers of the creed of "OSS everywhere!", so we see OSS in some 24-70 lenses...

It's almost like they believe that OSS applies pixie dust to their images, magically making everything clearer, allowing them to photograph a rapidly moving subject without blur at 1/10. Fact is, OSS will fight against tracking a rapidly moving subject (because you are moving the lens to track it, and OSS is designed to counteract lens motion!) unless the OSS has been designed with a special mode (sometimes called "panning mode", which does not fight motion in a specific direction).

- - -

For me, I want OSS if I'm buying a long lens - if I ever buy a 600mm lens, I'll be wanting OSS (not that I'm likely to have any choice!). I'll happily take OSS on a 400mm, a 300mm, even a 200mm.

However, I strongly prefer my shorter lenses to be designed and built without OSS. I'm delighted that the 135 GM does not include OSS. The 135 GM is an incredibly sharp lens, and I am certain that part of the reason is that omission of OSS from the design.

The fanatics will cry "but you can turn it off!", not appreciating that the OSS group remains in the lens, complicating the design, and introducing aberrations, even if it is notionally "off". And it requires power to hold that group still, so it shortens battery life, too.

- - -

Someone mentioned that Sony put OSS into a 50mm lens. And they do - there is a 50mm f/1.8 OSS lens. However their new 50mm f/1.2 GM lens, which received every feature they could throw at it (quad focus motors, extreme aspheric lens elements, nano coating, etc), does NOT feature OSS. This is not a cheap lens, so it's not as if they omitted OSS to reduce the price...

I haven't looked, but it might be fun to check Sony's list of GM prime lenses (their top of the line) to see which ones include OSS.

 

[Boojum]

You wanted to know a lens of ~50mm. OK, the Sony/Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 ZA. It has excellent definition and color. It will not let you down. Buy a cheaper lens and you will sell it at a loss to buy a better lens. Bite the bullet and buy the good lens now so that you can use it now. I have never regretted buying mine.

Bugatti

Not a ripple, dent or ridge in this elegant bodywork

flickr.com

Blackhawk Museum Insight Meet

February 29, 2020, Insight Central Member Meet-up

flickr.com

These are two albums of interior shots of auto museums, natural light. It is one helluva lens.

 

[TerryL]

Let's face it. It just depends on several factors and the older you get, the more factors there are. I'll take anything I can get to increase the sharpness of my photos.

Hi Jeff,
Im with you buddy.
Terry

 

[spudhead]

I got into a minor disagreement with someone on the Facebook group when discussing the new Sigma 18-50 for the APSC. Lens announcement for those who aren't sure what I'm talking about: https://www.alphashooters.com/commu...es-18-50mm-f2-8-dc-dn-contemporary-lens.3100/
I said it is a brilliant lens because it is so compact and has a nice wide aperture. Many disparaged the lack of OSS, to which I replied that it was an acceptable compromise.

Disclaimer: For those of you who do not swim in those waters (good for you!), the prevailing culture on the FB group is that OSS is 100% necessary for video and stills, and yet strangely this snobbery doesn't detract from the popularity of the Sigma holy trinity of 16/30/56 mm lenses which do not have OSS.

So I started wondering about the topic of OSS. What is your take on lens stability? Specifically in the absence of IBIS, can you get the job done without either? Or would you say its not necessary until a certain focal length?

Probably no problem at that length but you do not say which body he is using, if it sony it probably got ibis anyway. I use a few old long heavy lenses on a7iii a9 a99ii and it makes no difference in my opinion if they have or have not got oss because you can set ibis in the body anyway. The sony 300 g mk 1 I use weighs in at almost 2.4 kilos and that pails when compared with the old sigma 500 4.5 which weighs 4 kilos plus neither have oss. so with the 300 I turn of ibis anyway and the 500 is going to be on monopod anyway, if you can keep shutter speeds up its all good anyway. there are massive debates about ibis and oss you need to find what works for you. So recently I was shooting at a zoo with my daughter who shoots olympus omd 1 mk 2 micro 4/3 with 40-150 f 2.8 + 1.4 converter on her monopod. Some guy chirps up and states that she should turn off ibis on the monopod! so my reply was if the camera knows if the lens is moving when hand held then it can tell if it on a monopd! Wow big debate, long story short tried both ways to prove to him and guess what no difference! So I am sure everyone on here has an opinion

 

[spudhead]

IBIS should be turned off on a tripod. Monopods help but still move some, so leaving it on is good practice. And having said that, I've never turned it off on a tripod either, I always forget!

I dont use a tripod but if its on it not going to hurt in my opinion, the current cameras from all makers are really good and do a lot for us but we did manage before all this trick stuff

 

[Hank]

IBIS should be turned off on a tripod. Monopods help but still move some, so leaving it on is good practice. And having said that, I've never turned it off on a tripod either, I always forget!

Not forgetting that the longer Sony lenses have 2 and even 3 modes of OSS excluding on/off, (my 70-200 F4 has 2 and my 200-600 has 3) for use depending on the required stabilisation axis for the type of motion.

Just what us old blokes need. More things to remember switching on/off/otherwise.

 

[spudhead]

This isn't conjecture, virtually every single manufacturer recommends you turn it off when tripod mounted. In this case it's the 'trick stuff' causing the problem.

The reason is that IBIS is designed for the low frequency of hand shake. When mounted on a tripod, the camera can misinterpret the high frequency of shutter movement which could in turn confuse the IBIS. Again, I've never noticed a problem, but it's not just someone's opinion, there's some engineering behind it.

I always shoot silent shutter on the a9? never on tripod sometimes on monopod the 300 2.8 ibis is off on or off monopod ,500 ibis on when on or off monopod 400 minolta ibis on all the time ,so I do not know the answer to question just what has worked for me across thousands of images over several years. When I shoot with a99ii ibis on when hand held and off on monopod with old minolta primes I also turn front curtain shutter off .

 

[spudhead]

My understanding is that with Sony, it's either all on or all off. So I think if you shut it off in the camera or press the button on the lens, it's all off.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, works or doesn't. I've never shut it off and have never noticed an issue. I'm just telling you what the manufacturers recommend. I see it as a 'cover your ass' thing. They know it can happen and likely can produce it in the lab. They want to avoid public complaints about the camera.

Agree and I am probably the exception here as I am using quite old glass and its possibly more relevant to the newer glass and of course I have read the same advise you have, with the 200-600 I agree completely and also 70-200 f4 I have never bothered if it was on or off with the 24-70 zeiss as the focal length is not long, so I will bow out on this as I do not want to cause offence Gary

 

[Jeff A]

You wanted to know a lens of ~50mm. OK, the Sony/Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 ZA. It has excellent definition and color. It will not let you down. Buy a cheaper lens and you will sell it at a loss to buy a better lens. Bite the bullet and buy the good lens now so that you can use it now. I have never regretted buying mine.

Bugatti

Not a ripple, dent or ridge in this elegant bodywork

flickr.com

Blackhawk Museum Insight Meet

February 29, 2020, Insight Central Member Meet-up

flickr.com

These are two albums of interior shots of auto museums, natural light. It is one helluva lens.

I own one of these also. An excellent lens.

 

[AlphaWorld]

This isn't conjecture, virtually every single manufacturer recommends you turn it off when tripod mounted. In this case it's the 'trick stuff' causing the problem.

The reason is that IBIS is designed for the low frequency of hand shake. When mounted on a tripod, the camera can misinterpret the high frequency of shutter movement which could in turn confuse the IBIS. Again, I've never noticed a problem, but it's not just someone's opinion, there's some engineering behind it.

Another reason to want to shoot with an electronic shutter?

 

[Hank]

My understanding is that with Sony, it's either all on or all off. So I think if you shut it off in the camera or press the button on the lens, it's all off.

If the lens has an OSS ON/OFF switch, you can't turn it off in the camera menu, it will be greyed out. I'm not sure what you mean by all on or all off, the OSS mode selector gives different types of stabilization based on the type of shooting you are doing. Mode 1 for general non moving shots, Mode 2 for panning shots and Mode 3 for erratic movement like birds in flight or sports, so in mode 2 the motors don't fight the sideways motion for example. So I guess what I meant was, it's not just on and off to consider, but on and in what mode is appropriate 1.2 or 3, and off.

 

[AlphaWorld]

Fine if readout speed is fast enough. Wrong sensor and you'll get tearing and warped subjects. I keep thinking the next-gen will bring global shutters. We're getting close.

The A1 scrapes by

I suspect we may see one more gen without before we get full-on global shutter, but I won’t turn one down if it appears on the A2.

I learned about rolling shutter trying to shoot a cat with an A7RIV in silent shutter

 

[AlphaWorld]

Global Shutter is already in the pro market, they just need to squeeze us for every penny in the consumer market before it becomes the latest 'gotta have'.

I didn't know that. Which cameras have a global shutter already?

 

[AlphaWorld]

Dedicated pro video cameras. Think expensive, like tens of thousands. This is per my nephew. He works for a news channel in Detroit as an editor and part time cameraman and does some cine stuff on the side with some other industry people and friends. His group is waiting for the day global becomes more affordable. I'm sure that won't happen until we have economy of scale, but as soon as it's feasible the manufacturers will rush to get theirs out to the consumers. I don't think it's too widespread yet, he mentioned a specific manufacturer but no one recognizable to me.

Interesting.

Speculation:

Video cameras don't have high requirements in terms shutter speed, though (30fps uses 1/60, and 60fps usually uses 1/120, for example). Maybe the current global shutter implementations have limitations on how fast the shutter speed can be?

Would you be willing to buy a stills camera that could only go to, say, 1/200? Given that we tend to expect 1/8000 (and I'm enjoying 1/32000 on the A1), I would not expect that to go down well.

 

[AlphaWorld]

I'm sure by the time the technology and cost trickles down to we poor unfortunates they'll have it sorted. The first few models will probably be rushed to production as per usual, and they'll probably have some limitations, but if a system isn't workable for the masses then it wouldn't make much sense.

Agreed. That is why I'm thinking we won't see a global shutter in the next round - I think they are still working out issues.

 

[Boojum]

Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go?

 

[AlphaWorld]

Interesting timing!

Curiosity: Leaked image of the new Hasselblad X2D with Sony medium format sensor – sonyalpharumors

www.sonyalpharumors.com

Curiosity: Leaked image of the new Hasselblad X2D with Sony medium format sensor​

I have difficulty in believing everything that comes from SAR, especially when they describe a "mini-medium format" size sensor as "large format" (the entry point for large format is generally considered to be 4x5", and full large format is more up around the 8x10" or larger). This sensor is 57mm diagonal, but real medium format is more like 57mm x 57mm.

The idea that it might appear in a Hasselblad is unsurprising - Hasselblad cameras are not expected to support high frame rates, and they used to have quite limited ISO ranges (I haven't looked into them in some years now). Plus a Hasselblad usually comes with a high price tag, so if this sensor is really expensive, it won't be a problem.

It will be interesting to see how this goes, but I'm still expecting another generation of Sony Alphas without global shutter.

On another site someone said they wouldn't buy another camera until they could get one with global shutter - that's an interesting way to save money ;-)