I've had both OIS and IBIS on quite a few cameras (Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic, Sony...) and in both DSLR and EVF camera types. The cameras ranged in pixel resolution from 7.5 Mpixel to 24 MPixel. My current cameras are 40 Mpixel (Leica M10-M and M10-R) and 50 Mpixel (Hasselblad 907x/CFVII 50c).
I think that idea that higher resolution sensors are no more sensitive to movements than lower resolution ones is only true if you view/print the images at the same size or view them from the same distance but then what's the point of having the higher resolution? As soon as you want to take advantage of the higher resolution and look closer/crop into the image it will make a difference.
I don't buy higher pixel resolution cameras to make bigger prints. Unless you're selling prints in a gallery or to big corporate installations, prints larger than about 11x17 inch or so are such a tiny percentage of the market for prints it's hardly worth the expense of a printer with a larger than 13" printing gate.
The greater the number of pixels with a given sensor size, the smaller the size of each individual pixel.
M10: 5952 x 3968
M11: 9528 x 6328
There are over 2.5x as many pixels on the M11.
When images are displayed at 100%, M11 images are displayed 2.5x larger than M10 images. Even if images are captured under the same conditions and with the same level of hand or camera shake, blur in M11 images will be more than doubled when displayed, and be more noticeable.
However perceived blur will be the same at the same print/image magnification.
If you want to use the extra pixels to make a bigger image, you will magnify the blur at the same time. So you need to be more careful with camera motion.
To make use of the extra pixels, the camera movement needs to be reduced from what it is with the lower resolution camera (for easy math, 4x greater resolution requires half the shake as before, to take full advantage of the higher res.)
Higher res won't cause more blur or be more visible when looking at a photo from the same distance. But it will show camera shake more precisely.
The whole point of higher resolution sensors, to me, is improved detailing in the original image allowing for more options in cropping and rendering, particularly when coupled with the higher dynamic range of the more modern sensors. My print and web size output image sizing hasn't varied by much in twenty years because there's really no space to display a lot of huge prints properly and, by and large, most people's computer displays have plateaued at about the 27 to 32 inch diagonal size. FAR more of my photographs have made it into books and magazines than are ever printed large and/or framed for hanging on exhibition.
When I look through the somewhere near 700,000 photographs (the original capture, not a print image, whatever resolution it might be) I've made over the past twenty years with and without image stabilization, what stands out to me are two things:
- Cameras in the 7.5 to 14 Mpixel range show more benefits of image stabilization than higher resolution cameras overall, and there particularly with lenses slightly longer than normal focal length in marginal lighting circumstances. Part of this is that these tend to be older sensors that can't achieve the clean, astronomical ISO settings of more modern sensors and thus the boundary of when "marginal lighting" occurs is higher than with modern sensors.
- NO photos from any of the cameras, made hand-held, are as sharp as photos made with the same cameras fitted to a sturdy tripod, regardless of image stabilization or lighting demands.
That's what I see with my own eyes by examination, and without regard to calculating blur circles and pixel dimensions.
😉
So if you're looking for the best possible results from any camera with a good lens, use a tripod whenever it is feasible to do so. I see very, VERY little difference in the motion blur of hand-held original captures from my M10-M vs my M-D262 or Olympus E-M1 or Panasonic L1 at the same light levels and similar exposure times. What I do see with the M10-M is extraordinary detailing and remarkable dynamic range, well beyond what the others produced.
G
"My sharpest lens is a sturdy tripod."™
