I have relatively recently decided to go full frame and bought a A7mkII with a 24-105 F4 OSS lens. I am an Olympus user. I felt I had to supplement my micro four thirds kit with full frame to overcome the low light\high ISO performance issues with a small sensor camera. Perhaps I was foolish to expect that the 5 axis image stabilisation would be as good as the Olympus OMD M1 MkII but having taken low light shots using the same settings with both cameras, I find that I cannot hand hold the Sony with anything like the success rate that I achieve with the Olympus. In fact the Olympus gives much better results and hit rate for sharp photos at 200 ISO F4 than the Sony does at 3200 ISO F4. The shutter speed need to be much longer on the Olympus to compensate for the low ISO in this situation, but the IS seems to be far more able to handle it. I don't seem to be getting more than 2 stops advantage with the Sony IS whereas I am used to getting more than 5 stops with the Olympus. I know that shorter shutter speeds will be better for moving subjects so this favours the Sony but I seldom find that the image quality is that much better. My tests are crude and unscientific but there is one common factor in use here and that's me. Do you think there might be anything wrong with my Sony kit?
