Leaderboard

There are so many trade-offs here it's impossible to actually discuss all of them in any sensible way, that's why I suggest simply trying them yourself, as the proof is in the pudding. The recommendation of 1/200s is 4 times shorter than 1/50, so the recommendation for 13mm and 11mm lenses are vastly different despite the focal lengths being quite similar. I understand this is a generic recommendation, but that only works for generic people, and I have never met any of those before! I'm assuming your statement about the ILS producing more detail in RAW is about still images? That's a whole other thing than video and these tradeoffs all go completely different since the modern standard for getting sharp images seems to require a shutter of 1/5000 or faster, if I go by the fact that people are photographing action sports and seem to want sub-pixel sharpness instead of their images representing the fact that there is any motion involved at all in the scene. Anyway, I'll leave you to your assessments, but I can tell you that if you shoot video on a potato and upload it to YT at 480p with a 180 shutter and compare that to video shot on the BM 17K URSA with a 45 shutter and uploaded at 8K, there will be people who prefer the 180 shutter just because the motion is so important to them. This is perhaps a drastic example, but a more practical one would be why anyone at all still shoots on 16mm. It is completely technically inferior in literally every regard, and yet, people still pay a huge amount of money for the pleasure.

Interesting. I'd imagine that a shoulder mounted rig would be quite stable in most circumstances, especially from the micro-jitters of smaller camera rigs. I've also found that shutter angle is a bit of a strange thing, where in some scenarios you want a larger angle and other scenarios it doesn't matter that much. Often this was related to how large the motion was in frame and how visible it was (e.g. if it was a hard high-contrast edge or softer). The output quality matters too - when I was testing my GF3, which does (IIRC) 1080p at 12Mbps (or similar) the shutter angle on many shots didn't really matter because the motion on a 180 shutter was comparable to the resolving power of the final image (it looks like quite compressed 720p footage) so for lots of stuff it didn't matter at all!

I guess it's a tradeoff: The more your hands shake during filming the blurrier each frame will be (motion blur) and the more stabilisation that happens after that the more that there will be motion blur in the footage without the associated camera shake and it will just look like random blurring (like the lens AF was pulsing, etc) The longer the shutter the more motion blur there will be in each frame The higher the resolution of the final result the more visible the intermittent blurring will be (ie, it will be more visible if you sharpen the footage on a 4K timeline and it will be less visible if you apply lots of image softening and grain) The higher your standards the more sensitive you will be to random blurring and to shorter shutter speeds For some people they're super sensitive to shutter angle, so are very intolerant to that. If they are also sensitive to blur and are going to sharpen the footage and publish in 4K then they will have to hold the camera a lot steadier to meet their requirements. For people that don't care about shutter angle then just have super-short shutters and you'll have great results. For people that want longer shutters but are going to soften the image a lot in post, or will be using much softer lenses, then they can afford to have shakier shooting because the random blurring will be far less visible. For people that don't care about the motion in the image then they can be happy despite the fact that other people would be very unhappy. In this sense it's impossible to know how you'll find something by just listening to other people. Tonnes of people think that some of the modern Sony and Zeiss lenses are "soft" and I think they're completely insane, but that's just different taste. In this case you probably have no idea how shaky your hands are compared to the next person, and there are no metrics that we can use to compare. From my experience of OIS and how I shoot, I'd get FAR FAR sharper images from the GX800 than the ILS, because the amount of camera shake I would have is easily enough to make the frames blurry but less than most OIS lenses can compensate for. In this sense it's not about the camera specs, it's about OIS vs not.

The tests I showed had blur with a shoulder mounted camera at 180º shutter angle. I tried a few shorter angles and determined that 90º was okay. Shorter shutter angles had too crisp motion.

I'm sure IBIS will do better. However, when I look at the footage up to 50mm, it looks decent if you have the right SS. You have to remember I'm replacing a GX800 (2017 tech). The ILS isn't really in the same league in terms of capabilities (especially audio and slow motion). Both cameras are better when using a tripod of any kind. The GX800 didn't have any IS other than optical in the lens and the video (even 4k) was more susceptible to moiré and aliasing. The ILS is effectively lighter with way better IS than the GX800- that's why I'd get it. I do like the Flip-up screen on the GX800, something I wish the S9 would have. Here are some thoughts from someone who actually purchased the camera like me: