|
|
|
|
|
by hug
2801 days ago
|
|
Are you arguing that EIS over a series of burst photos is incapable of making things better? Everything I can see you saying -- much if it agreeable, like the fact that long-exposure OIS makes a lot of what this technology currently does possible without it -- is simply handwaving away the fact that EIS-over-burst with OIS can achieve things that OIS cannot by itself. It seems to me that it's patently true that EIS has some benefits, and those benefits can be realised over the top of OIS. There's obviously still a fair limit to OIS. I have somewhat shaky hands and even using something like Olympus' top range 5-axis IBIS, which is the best I've ever seen, I can still only shoot at 1/10". What can EIS do with a burst of 3x 1/20" exposures? Probably counter for my shaking a bit, at least. (If not for subject movement, yet.) I simply do not see why you're discounting this so heavily. |
|
This all gets very reductionist, but EIS over a series of bursts is a bad alternative to OIS. It will be garbage in->garbage out. EIS with OIS, however, gives you the benefits of OIS, with the safety valve and "time travelling" effect of EIS (in that it can correct where OIS made the wrong presumption, like the beginning of a pan).
>and even using something like Olympus' top range 5-axis IBIS
The ability of OIS to counter movement is a function of the focal length. Your Olympus probably has a 75mm equivalent or higher lens, where a small degree of movement is a large subject skew. That smartphone probably has a 26-28mm equivalent lens. Small degrees of movement are much more correctable.
EIS is brilliant. OIS is better for small movements, but add EIS and it's great. Computational photography is brilliant. However Google has really, really been pouring out the snake oil for their Pixel line.